Talk:Continuous performance task

Synonymous to Continuous Performance Test?
If so, when redirect could be made, and CPT-IP (Identical Pairs version) description could be added to the article. Best regards, CopperKettle 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify
The examples make no sense to this layperson. Please explain them in a bit more detail -- I'm not sure what they're supposed to signify.75.139.32.246 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is basically incorrect, I will add some information but if anyone wants to expand on it, you may use the links that I provide to do so. 70.111.78.169 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Acrisolo
 * Incredible work. I have just tried to wikify it a bit (internal links, proper style for references, etc...) --Garrondo (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

--Thank you for the wikification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.231.184.118 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move
This article is not about a continuous performance task, but about the Continuous Performance Test. Therefore I propose a move to Continuous Performance Test. Please comment! Lova Falk    talk   09:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment!  Lova Falk     talk   12:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree This article looks pretty generic to me. If you want to make a new page about a specific product, it should probably have "Connors", "IVA", or such in the title, to show whose CPT it is. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't do it.  Lova Falk     talk   09:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

❌

I see Lova proposed a move earlier
Looking at this article talk page, I see that there has been confusion about what this article is about, so I will fix that and prepare for more fixes in the future. I will rename as that has already been proposed and discussed here before. The sources make clear what to do. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Other CPT tests
Why don't you mention tests such as the Bourdon-Wiersma test, the Boudon-Vos test and Hogrefe's d2-tets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad van der Ven (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Clinical Validity
Is it appropriate to add a Clinical Validity section that covers research about the reliability of the test for ADD diagnosis? See and

75.86.40.19 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)