Side-by-side comparison of 5 Continuous Performance Tests in active clinical use for ADHD assessment. Comparison fields: task paradigm, age range, format, normative sample, FDA clearance, and pricing transparency.
Each row links to a detailed page for that tool. Information sourced from publisher product pages, peer-reviewed validation literature, and FDA 510(k) records (where applicable).
| Tool | Format | Age range | Duration | Norm sample | FDA cleared | Public pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOVA TOVA Company / The TOVA Test | In-clinic only | 4–80+ | ~22 minutes (full version) | >1,500 (Visual); separate Auditory norms | ✓ | — |
| Conners Continuous Performance Test, 3rd Edition Multi-Health Systems (MHS) | In-clinic only | 8+ | ~14 minutes | ~2,000 | — | — |
| QbCheck / QbTest Qbtech | In-clinic and remote | 6–60 | 15–20 minutes | >1,300 | ✓ | — |
| IVA-2 BrainTrain | In-clinic only | 6–96 | ~13 minutes core test (longer with full battery) | ~1,700 | — | — |
| AxonCPT Axon | Fully remote | Adults and adolescents (specific age range per vendor) | ~18 minutes | >20,000 | — | ✓ |
Visual / Auditory continuous performance — non-language stimuli (geometric shapes / tones)
Letter-based go/no-go (respond to all letters except X)
Visual go/no-go combined with motion-tracking via webcam (QbTest uses infrared head-tracking; QbCheck uses standard webcam)
Combined visual and auditory CPT — respond to "1" stimuli, ignore "2" stimuli, both modalities interleaved
Remote continuous performance task; clinician-administered, patient takes the test from home
FDA 510(k) clearance for a CPT does not establish diagnostic accuracy by itself — it establishes substantial equivalence to a predicate device. Clinical evidence for ADHD-discriminative validity comes from peer-reviewed validation studies independently of FDA clearance status.
Sample size matters less than recency, demographic representativeness, and how the sample was screened for psychiatric and developmental conditions. Older norms (pre-2010) may underrepresent diversity in ways that shift age- and sex-matched percentiles.
Remote-administered tests reduce in-clinic burden but introduce hardware, environment, and observation variability not present in standardized clinic conditions. The trade-off is implementation feasibility versus standardization. Some research suggests remote and in-clinic variants produce comparable discriminative accuracy when administration is standardized.
Most established CPT tools (TOVA, Conners CPT-3, IVA-2, Qbtech) require direct vendor contact for pricing. AxonCPT publishes its pricing publicly. This is a difference in commercial model, not in clinical capability.