Search

Objective: Social Security Disability is a common external incentive in neuropsychological evaluations. This study determined base rates of invalidity when patients referred for routine clinical evaluations have Social Security Disability as an external incentive. Method: Patients (n = 242) were grouped as validly or invalidly performing based on the use of multiple performance validity tests. Frequency analyses were then conducted. Results: As a whole, 46.0% of clinically referred patients with Social Security Disability as an external incentive produced invalid data. When divided by disability pursuit status, 58.6% of individuals already receiving Social Security Disability, 44.6% of individuals actively seeking Social Security Disability, and 39.3% of individuals considering seeking Social Security Disability produced invalid data. By comparison, only 8.5% of clinically referred patients without known external incentives produced invalid data. Conclusions: Beyond establishing base rates, these data indicate that the external incentive, not necessarily the evaluation setting, increases the rate of invalidity, as obtained base rates mirror those observed in independent medical examinations. In addition, this study highlights that even patients who report that they are considering but have not committed themselves to pursuing an external incentive frequently invalidate testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research criteria for prodromal dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were published in 2020, but little is known regarding prodromal DLB in clinical settings. Methods: We identified non-demented participants without neurodegenerative disease from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set who converted to DLB at a subsequent visit. Prevalence of neuropsychiatric and motor symptoms were examined up to 5 years prior to DLB diagnosis. Results: The sample included 116 participants clinically diagnosed with DLB and 348 age and sex-matched (1:3) Healthy Controls. Motor slowing was present in approximately 70% of participants 3 years prior to DLB diagnosis. In the prodromal phase, 50% of DLB participants demonstrated gait disorder, 70% had rigidity, 20% endorsed visual hallucinations, and over 50% of participants endorsed REM sleep behavior disorder. Apathy, depression, and anxiety were common prodromal neuropsychiatric symptoms. The presence of 1+ core clinical features of DLB in combination with apathy, depression, or anxiety resulted in the greatest AUC (0.815; 95% CI: 0.767, 0.865) for distinguishing HC from prodromal DLB 1 year prior to diagnosis. The presence of 2+ core clinical features was also accurate in differentiating between groups (AUC = 0.806; 95% CI: 0.756, 0.855). Conclusion: A wide range of motor, neuropsychiatric and other core clinical symptoms are common in prodromal DLB. A combination of core clinical features, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive impairment can accurately differentiate DLB from normal aging prior to dementia onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the specificity of both individual PVTs and three different PVT batteries in individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for dementia in order to establish both appropriate individual test cutoffs and multiple-PVT failure criterion. Participants were 311 validly performing patients with no cognitive impairment (n = 24), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 115), mild dementia (n = 122), or moderate dementia (n = 50). Cutoffs associated with ≥90% specificity were established for 11 individual PVTs across impairment severity groups. Aggregate false positive rates according to number of PVTs failed were examined for two 4-PVT batteries and one 7-PVT battery. One-way ANOVAs with post-hoc comparisons were conducted for each PVT. Performance on 9 of 11 PVTs significantly differed according to impairment severity. PVT cutoffs achieving ≥90% specificity also generally varied by group. For PVTs previously validated in non-dementia samples, slight adjustments from established cutoffs were generally required to maintain adequate specificity in MCI and mild dementia groups, with greater modifications required in the moderate dementia group. A criterion of ≥2 PVT failures resulted in ≥90% specificity in both 4-PVT batteries across groups. In the 7-PVT battery, adequate specificity was achieved with ≥2 failures in MCI and ≥3 failures in the mild dementia group. The incorporation and interpretation of several easily assimilated multiple-PVT batteries in dementia evaluations are explored. Additionally, data regarding individual PVT performance according to cognitive impairment severity are provided to aide validity assessment of both patients undergoing dementia evaluation and examinees who are less impaired. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Medical providers often express difficulty in detecting dementia (Bradford et al., 2009), feel ill-equipped to address issues related to dementia care, or neglect to communicate dementia diagnoses and treatment recommendations (Alzheimer's Association, 2015). Despite this, neuropsychologists, who are specifically trained in dementia diagnosis and treatment planning, are not always utilized in the dementia care process. The objective of this study was to investigate family members' perceptions regarding the incremental benefit of the neuropsychological evaluation, relative to previously rendered services, in addressing patient diagnosis/symptoms and in discussing future care plans. Participants and Methods: A survey questionnaire was distributed to family members of patients who had undergone a neuropsychological dementia workup at a university medical center in the Midwest by one of five neuropsychology providers. Immediately following the neuropsychological feedback session, family members were provided a $10 gift card and a stamped, pre-addressed envelope to return the survey anonymously by mail. Respondents were typically spouses (60.6%) or adult children (29.1%), with 82.4% identifying themselves as the primary caregiver. Patient age ranged from 52 to 92 years (M=73.4). Sixty-seven percent of patients were diagnosed with dementia and 24% with mild cognitive impairment; 9% were not diagnosed with a cognitive disorder. The most commonly suspected etiology for cognitive impairment was Alzheimer's disease or mixed Alzheimer's and vascular disease (46%). Providers noted as previously having been involved in the care of the patients' cognitive symptoms included primary care providers (88%), neurologists (60%), psychiatrists (13%), and psychologists (9%). Results: Two-hundred surveys were disseminated with a response rate of 64% (n=127). Family members were asked to compare the benefit of the neuropsychological evaluation in addressing the patients' symptoms as compared with services rendered by previous providers using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not beneficial) to 5 (extremely beneficial). The average benefit rating was 4.6/5.0 (SD=0.7) for the neuropsychological evaluation as compared with 3.0/5.0 (SD=1.1) for previous services, a statistically significant difference (p <.001). Family members were also asked to rate the helpfulness of both the neuropsychologist and previous providers in discussing aspects of the patient's diagnosis and care plan using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). Comparison using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated neuropsychologists were rated as significantly more helpful than previous providers (p <.001) in discussing the cause or diagnosis for their family member's symptoms (M=4.6/5.0 vs. M=3.0/5.0), strategies for providing care to their family members (M=4.5/5.0 vs. M=2.8/5.0), a comprehensive treatment and care plan (M=4.3/5.0 vs. M=2.6/5.0), symptom impact on activities of daily living (M=4.4/5.0 vs. M=2.9/5.0), and symptom impact on current and future functioning (M=4.4/5.0 vs. M=2.8/5.0). Conclusions: Overall, family members reported the neuropsychological evaluation and feedback session to be significantly more helpful in addressing patient cognitive diagnoses, symptoms, and care plan as compared to previously rendered services by non-neuropsychologists. The results underscore the unique and incremental benefit of the neuropsychological evaluation, not only in diagnosis, but also in assisting family in understanding symptom nature, functional impact, and resultant care needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing feedback to clinical patients who produce invalid neuropsychological test data presents with several potential challenges. Given the limited guidance available on the topic, neuropsychologists most likely utilize approaches that idiosyncratically incorporate professional values related to both assessment and patient care to address overarching feedback goals. The current article discusses professional values believed to inform feedback decisions and presents survey results regarding how neuropsychologists would approach feedback across various clinical scenarios where testing is invalid. Participants were 209 adult-focused clinical neuropsychologists recruited via professional listservs, the majority of whom reported being board certified. Respondents were provided three case vignettes of clinical patients who produced invalid test data and were asked how they would provide feedback to each patient. Open-ended responses were coded to determine the relative frequency of feedback approaches, explicit statements, and implied goals. Nearly all respondents (98%) indicated that feedback would include some description of the invalid findings, and most respondents indicated that they would provide explanations for the reasons of invalidity (67%) and statements regarding the impact of invalidity on test interpretation (75%). There was little agreement across respondents, however, regarding specific feedback approach. Feedback goals included to Inform, Investigate, Treat, Educate, and Correct, with the presence of these implied goals also varying across respondents. The findings indicate that there is minimal consensus regarding feedback approaches provided to patients who produce invalid test data and underscore a need for further development and validation of specific feedback methods. The results are discussed within the context of the potentially competing professional values of evidence-based assessment, patient-doctor collaboration, and aspirational principles of beneficence and fidelity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To increase sensitivity of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), adjustments have been proposed, including adding consistency indices. The Invalid Forgetting Frequency Index (IFFI) is the most recently developed consistency index. While strong classification accuracy rates were originally reported, it currently lacks cross-validation. Method A sample of 184 outpatients was utilized. Valid performers passed all criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and invalid performers failed two or more PVTs. Classification accuracy statistics were calculated. Results AUC for the IFFI was 0.80, demonstrating adequate discrimination between valid and invalid groups. A score of 3 or more inconsistent responses resulted in sensitivity and specificity rates of 63% and 92%, respectively. Conclusions This is the first article to cross-validate the IFFI. In both the original IFFI study and the current study, the same cut-off was found to maintain at least 90% specificity while producing higher sensitivity rates than those achieved by traditional TOMM indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While use of performance validity tests (PVTs) has become a standard of practice in neuropsychology, there are differing opinions regarding whether to interpret cognitive test data when standard scores fall within normal limits despite PVTs being failed. This study is the first to empirically determine whether normal cognitive test scores underrepresent functioning when PVTs are failed. Method: Participants, randomly assigned to either a simulated malingering group (n = 50) instructed to mildly suppress test performances or a best-effort/control group (n = 50), completed neuropsychological tests which included the North American Adult Reading Test (NAART), California Verbal Learning Test – 2nd Edition (CVLT-II), and Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Results: Groups were not significantly different in age, sex, education, or NAART predicted intellectual ability, but simulators performed significantly worse than controls on the TOMM, CVLT-II Forced Choice Recognition, and CVLT-II Short Delay Free Recall. The groups did not significantly differ on other examined CVLT-II measures. Of simulators who failed validity testing, 36% scored no worse than average and 73% scored no worse than low average on any of the examined CVLT-II indices. Conclusions: Of simulated malingerers who failed validity testing, nearly three-fourths were able to produce cognitive test scores that were within normal limits, which indicates that normal cognitive performances cannot be interpreted as accurately reflecting an individual's capabilities when obtained in the presence of validity test failure. At the same time, only 2 of 50 simulators were successful in passing validity testing while scoring within an impaired range on cognitive testing. This latter finding indicates that successfully feigning cognitive deficits is difficult when PVTs are utilized within the examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in pediatric examinees. It adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Method A systematic literature search was conducted using PsycINFO and PubMed, reviewing articles from January 1997 to July 2019. Books providing data on pediatric validity testing were also reviewed for references to relevant articles. Eligibility criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, utilizing a pediatric sample, providing sufficient data to calculate specificity and/or sensitivity, and providing a means for evaluating validity status external to the TOMM. After selection criteria were applied, 9 articles remained for meta-analysis. Samples included clinical patients and healthy children recruited for research purposes; ages ranged from 5 to 18. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate classification accuracy statistics. Results Traditional adult-derived cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96–0.99) in pediatric examinees for both clinical and research samples. Sensitivity was relatively strong (0.68–0.70), although only two studies reported sensitivity rates. A supplemental review of the literature corroborated these findings, revealing that traditional adult-based TOMM cutoffs are supported in most pediatric settings. However, limited research exists on the impact of very young age, extremely low cognitive functioning, and varying clinical diagnoses. Conclusions The TOMM, at traditional adult cutoffs, has strong specificity as a performance validity test in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. This meta-analysis found that specificity values in children are comparable to those of adults. Areas for further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to examine traditional and alternative cutoffs across Trial 1, Trial 2, and Retention. Method: Search criteria identified 539 articles published from 1997 to 2017. After application of selection criteria, 60 articles were retained for meta-analysis. Classification accuracy statistics were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Results: For Trial 1, a cutoff of <42 was found to result in the highest sensitivity value (0.59–0.70) when maintaining specificity at ≥0.90. Traditional cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96–0.98) and moderately sensitive (0.46–0.56) when considering all available studies and only neurocognitive/psychiatric samples classified by known-groups design. For both trials, a modified cutoff of <49 allowed for improved sensitivity (0.59–0.70) while maintaining adequate specificity (0.91–0.97). A supplementary review revealed that traditional TOMM cutoffs produced >0.90 specificity across most samples of examinees for whom English is not the primary language, but well-below acceptable levels in individuals with dementia. Conclusions: The TOMM is highly specific when interpreted per traditional cutoffs. In individuals not suspected of significant impairment, findings indicate that a less conservative TOMM Trial 2 or Retention cutoff of <49 can be interpreted as invalid, especially in settings associated with higher base rates of invalidity and, thus, higher positive predictive power. A cutoff of <42 on Trial 1 can also be interpreted as invalid in most settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated sensitivity and specificity rates of four Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) indices (Trial 1, Trial 2, Retention, and Albany Consistency Index (ACI)) and examined how classification accuracy rates change when utilizing these indices in various combinations. Method: A sample of 202 neuropsychological outpatients was utilized. Patients were categorized as valid performers if they passed all criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and were determined to be invalid performers if they failed two or more criterion PVTs. Classification accuracy statistics were obtained for individual TOMM indices as well as combinations of TOMM indices. Results: When using only Trial 1 as a validity indicator, the TOMM identified 57% of invalidly performing individuals. When all TOMM indices were examined, the ACI demonstrated the highest sensitivity value (63%) but it also demonstrated the lowest specificity value (91%). Allowing for failure of any of the four TOMM indices provided the best overall sensitivity value (67%) while maintaining adequate specificity (90%). Finally, it was determined that failure of three or more TOMM validity indices resulted in a specificity rate of 97% and failure of four of more TOMM validity indices resulted in a specificity rate of 98%. Conclusions: Classification accuracy of TOMM validity indices are discussed in relation to positive and negative predictive values. Results suggest that clinicians can examine all four TOMM validity indices concurrently, particularly in settings where high base rates of invalidity occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objectives of this study were to investigate family members' perception of the impact of the neuropsychological evaluation and subsequent feedback session on (1) caregiver understanding of the patient's diagnosis and symptoms and (2) treatment planning, patient well-being, caregiver stress, and support utilization. Participants and Methods: Participants included family members of patients undergoing a neuropsychological dementia evaluation and subsequent oral feedback session at a midwestern university medical center by one of five neuropsychology providers. The average age of patients undergoing dementia evaluation was 73.4 (range = 52 - 92). Patients in the sample were categorized as having dementia (67%), mild cognitive impairment (24%), or no cognitive disorder (9%), with 46% of the sample suspected to have Alzheimer's disease or mixed Alzheimer's and vascular disease. Immediately following the feedback session, family members were provided a brief survey, $10 prepaid gift card to keep regardless of survey completion, and a stamped, pre-addressed envelope to return the survey anonymously by mail. A total of 200 surveys were disseminated and 127 (64%) were completed and returned. Family members completing the survey were most often the spouse (60.6%) or the child (29.1%) of the patient. Eighty-two percent of respondents identified as being the patient's primary caregiver. Results: Family members were asked to rate their agreement to perceptions held both prior to and following the neuropsychological evaluation. Ninety-seven percent strongly agreed (81%) or agreed (16%) that the neuropsychological evaluation was helpful, and 95% strongly agreed (62%) or agreed (33%) that the neuropsychological evaluation would help the patient get better or more targeted care. Comparison using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that family members were significantly more likely to agree (p <.001) with the following beliefs after, as opposed to preceding, the neuropsychological evaluation: (1) the patient's symptoms had been well addressed (z = -7.95), (2) I was explained the diagnosis (z = -8.12), (3) I am confident in my family member's diagnosis (z = -7.88), and (4) I am more likely to use dementia-related community resources (z = -5.78). Additionally, family members nearly unanimously agreed or strongly agreed that, following the neuropsychological evaluation, their family member's symptoms had been well addressed (98%), they were explained the patient's diagnosis (98%), and they were confident in the diagnosis (97%). In instances where dementia was diagnosed, 91% of family members agreed/strongly agreed that they planned to use dementia-related community resources. Furthermore, a majority of family members reported that the neuropsychological evaluation positively impacted the patient's psychological wellbeing (82%), caregiver stress (74%), caregiver interactions with the patient (76%), treatment plan (82%), and overall patient care (79%). Conclusions: Results indicate that family members of patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for suspected dementia perceive the neuropsychological evaluation as improving diagnostic understanding and confidence. Additionally, family members nearly unanimously agreed that the neuropsychological evaluation had a positive impact on treatment planning, patient well-being, caregiver stress, and utilization of supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated whether indices within the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised (BVMT-R) could function as embedded performance validity measures in an outpatient clinical sample. Method: A sample of 138 neuropsychological outpatients was utilized; approximately 45% had a known or suspected external incentive. Patients were determined to be valid performers if they passed all criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and determined to be invalid performers if they failed two or more PVTs. BVMT-R indices met criteria for optimal embedded PVTs if they were not significantly correlated with genuine cognitive dysfunction and if they adequately differentiated the validly from invalidly performing patient groups. Classification accuracy statistics for the indices were then calculated. Supplementary analyses were also calculated for a separate dementia sample. Results: Recognition Hits and Recognition Discrimination were identified as two optimal embedded PVTs for patients without dementia. Recognition Hits showed a sensitivity rate of 41% and a specificity rate of 95%. Recognition Discrimination showed a sensitivity rate of 54% and a specificity rate of 93%. Conclusion: Embedded BVMT-R PVTs are discussed in relation to previous research findings, which were obtained from veteran samples. Recognition Hits and Recognition Discrimination are now validated in a non-veteran clinical sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Performance validity test (PVT) research studies commonly utilize a known-groups design, but the criterion grouping approaches within the design vary greatly from one study to another. At the present time, it is unclear as to what degree different criterion grouping approaches might impact PVT classification accuracy statistics. Method: To analyze this, the authors used three different criterion grouping approaches to examine how classification accuracy statistics of a PVT (Word Choice Test; WCT) would differ. The three criterion grouping approaches included: (1) failure of 2+ PVTs versus failure of 0 PVTs, (2) failure of 2+ PVTs versus failure of 0–1 PVT, and (3) failure of a stand-alone PVT versus passing of a stand-alone PVT (Test of Memory Malingering). Results: When setting specificity at ≥.90, WCT cutoff scores ranged from 41 to 44 and associated sensitivity values ranged from.64 to.88, depending on the criterion grouping approach that was utilized. Conclusions: When using a stand-alone PVT to define criterion group status, classification accuracy rates of the WCT were higher than expected, likely due to strong correlations between the reference PVT and the WCT. This held true even when considering evidence that this grouping approach results in higher rates of criterion group misclassification. Conversely, when using criterion grouping approaches that utilized failure of 2+ PVTs, accuracy rates were more consistent with expectations. These findings demonstrate that criterion grouping approaches can impact PVT classification accuracy rates and resultant cutoff scores. Strengths, weaknesses, and practical implications of each of the criterion grouping approaches are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropsychologists provide detailed assessments of cognitive and emotional functioning that often cannot be obtained through other diagnostic means. They use standardized assessment tools and integrate the findings with other data to determine whether cognitive decline has occurred, to differentiate neurologic from psychiatric conditions, to identify neurocognitive etiologies, and to determine the relationship between neurologic factors and difficulties in daily functioning. Family physicians should consider referring patients when there are questions about diagnostic decision making or planning of individualized management strategies for patients with mild cognitive impairment, dementia, traumatic brain injury, and other clinical conditions that affect cognitive functioning. Neuropsychological testing can differentiate Alzheimer dementia from nondementia with nearly 90% accuracy. The addition of neuropsychological testing to injury severity variables (e.g., posttraumatic amnesia) increases predicted accuracy in functional outcomes. A neuropsychological evaluation can be helpful in addressing concerns about functional capacities (e.g., ability to drive or live independently) and in determining a patient's capacity to make decisions about health care or finances. Most patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluation and their significant others reported that they found the evaluation helpful in understanding and coping with cognitive problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the impact of performance validity test (PVT) failure on the Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) in a sample of 252 neuropsychological patients. Word reading performance differed significantly according to PVT failure status, and number of PVTs failed accounted for 7.4% of the variance in word reading performance, even after controlling for education. Furthermore, individuals failing ≥2 PVTs were twice as likely as individuals passing all PVTs (33% vs. 16%) to have abnormally low obtained word reading scores relative to demographically predicted scores when using a normative base rate of 10% to define abnormality. When compared with standardization study clinical groups, those failing ≥2 PVTs were twice as likely as patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and as likely as patients with Alzheimer’s dementia to obtain abnormally low TOPF word reading scores. Findings indicate that TOPF word reading based estimates of premorbid functioning should not be interpreted in individuals invalidating cognitive testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine neuropsychological test performance among individuals clinically diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease (PD) without evidence of dopaminergic deficiency on [123]I-CIT single photon emission computed tomography imaging. Methods: Data were obtained from the Parkinson’s Progression Marker Initiative. The sample included 59 participants with scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficiency (SWEDD), 412 with PD, and 114 healthy controls (HC). Tests included Judgment of Line Orientation, Letter-Number Sequencing, Symbol Digit Modalities, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, and Letter and Category Fluency. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare standardized scores between the groups. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in performances between the groups, F(14,1155)=5.04; p<.001; partial η2=.058. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences in Category Fluency between SWEDD (M=0.22; SD=1.08) and HC (M=0.86; SD=1.15) and in Symbol Digit Modalities Test performance between SWEDD (M=45.09; SD=11.54) and HC (M=51.75; SD=9.79). No significant differences between SWEDD and PD were found. Using established criteria, approximately one in four participants in the SWEDD and PD groups met criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Conclusions: Individuals with SWEDD demonstrate significantly worse mental processing speed and semantic fluency than HC. The neuropsychological test performances and rates of MCI were similar between the SWEDD group and PD groups, which may reflect a common pathology outside of the nigrostriatal pathway. (JINS, 2018, 24, 646–651) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of different methods of standardizing cognitive data in the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative.Methods: Cognitive data from 423 participants with Parkinson's disease were included (age = 61.7 [9.7], education = 15.6 [3.0]). Internal norms were calculated using the group mean and standard deviation of the healthy control group. Published norms were compared to the overall group mean of and to age-stratified norms from healthy controls for each neuropsychological test over 4 visits. Rates of mild cognitive impairment were calculated using established criteria.Results: The use of internal norms resulted in lower standardized scores than published norms on all tests with the exception of memory and processing speed (P ≤ .001). Individuals were 1.5 to 2.1 times more likely to be diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment using internal norms than published norms.Conclusions: Standardization approaches with cognitive data are not interchangeable. Selection of a normative comparison group impacts research and clinical interpretations of cognitive data. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Normative sample composition can vary notably as a function of exclusionary criteria in older adult samples given that typical medical conditions of exclusion become more prevalent with age. Older adult norms may consist of typically aging or healthy aging individuals according to the stringency of the exclusion criteria, a difference illustrated when comparing two normative samples for the RBANS: the original standardization sample and the Oklahoma sample.Methods: The current study examined the clinical impact of norm selection in older adults by analyzing impairment classification rates for 105 older adult behavioral health inpatients. Rates of impaired performance (scaled score ≤4 or its normalized equivalent) were compared across RBANS subtests using standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample normative data in patients aged 70–79 (n = 57) and 80–89 (n = 48).Results: Across most RBANS subtests, utilization of the original standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample norms resulted in a greater proportion of individuals classified as impaired. These findings occurred across both age groups and persevered when holding constant the sample normalization process. Overall, use of the standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample normative data were 1–11 times more likely to indicate impairment, with one of the more notable differences seen on the Coding subtest in the 80–89 sample (65% vs. 8% labeled as impaired).Conclusions: Sample composition and exclusionary criteria require consideration when selecting an appropriate normative sample against which to compare older adult test performance. Salient differences between typically aging vs. healthy aging older adult norms are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective:Excessive Decline from Premorbid Functioning (EDPF) is presented as a construct and defined as a discrepancy between predicted premorbid ability and current test performance that is so atypical of individuals with true neurocognitive impairment that it is likely the product of performance invalidity. New embedded PVTs (EDPF-FSIQ, EDPF-VW, and EDPF-PP) were derived by comparing scores from the WAIS-IV to TOPF demographically predicted premorbid estimates and then examined for classification accuracy.Participants and methods:After excluding for dementia, intellectual disability, and left-sided stroke, participants (n = 230) were grouped according to number of PVTs failed. ROC analyses were conducted to determine the accuracy of EDPF indices in classifying patients as failing 0 or ≥2 PVTs within both a mixed neuropsychological outpatient sample and according to specific diagnostic criterion groups.Results:Significant group differences emerged for all EDPF indices (p < .001). EDPF-FSIQ resulted in an AUC of .837, classifying patients with 56% sensitivity at ≥90% specificity, and EDPF-VW resulted in an AUC of .850, classifying patients with 61% sensitivity at ≥90% specificity. Accuracy remained high across diagnostic groups (i.e. neurocognitive, moderate/severe TBI, and psychiatric) for EDPF-VW and EDPF-FSIQ, whereas specificity declined for EDPF-PP in patients with mixed neurocognitive disorders. Overall, classification accuracy rates exceeded those of Reliable Digit Span.Conclusions:Both EDPF-FSIQ and EDPF-VW demonstrated excellent discrimination between patients providing valid versus invalid test performance. Unique advantages of EDPF validity measures include incorporation of demographic estimates of premorbid ability and examination of performances on multiple tests spanning different cognitive domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is present in up to 34% of patients with early-stage Parkinson disease (PD); however, it is difficult to detect subtle impairment without objective cognitive testing.Methods: Data were obtained from the Parkinson Progression Marker Initiative. All 341 participants were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and a brief neuropsychological battery. Participants were classified as PD-MCI if MoCA was <26 or if they scored ≥1 standard deviation below the normative mean in 2 or more domains, based upon established criteria. The sensitivity/specificity for the clinical detection of PD-MCI was determined.Results: Overall accuracy for clinical detection of PD-MCI was 67.4%. Although clinical determination was highly specific (96.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.98), sensitivity was poor (32.0%; 95% CI: 0.25-0.40).Conclusion: Identifying MCI in early-stage PD based on clinical interview alone appears to be insufficient. The inclusion of objective cognitive tests allowing for normative sample comparisons is needed to increase the detection of cognitive impairment in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:The current study investigated expert beliefs and practices as they relate to neuropsychological validity testing.Methods:North American neuropsychologists with expertise in neuropsychological validity testing (n = 24) were surveyed on numerous items related to validity testing. Results were analyzed and compared to findings from a prior expert survey and a recent survey of a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners.Results:Responses varied among experts on some items, indicating that experts have differences of opinion and practice regarding certain validity testing topics. However, expert opinion converged on a number of topics central to validity testing, particularly those highlighting the need for and importance of validity testing in neuropsychological assessment. Notably, expert responses on these topics often agreed with responses obtained from a prior expert sample and a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners.Conclusions:The results allow practitioners to see the range of validity testing beliefs and practices among current experts. Especially in those areas where consensus emerged, the results provide a way for practitioners to determine if their practices are consistent with those of their expert colleagues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article indicates that malingering, factitious disorder and related somatic disorders present with unique diagnostic and treatment challenges as reporting of symptoms that are beyond available medical evidence is a central feature of each medical condition. Topics include a recommendation that clinicians extend beyond categorical thinking and instead try to understand the function of the deceptive behavior. Also mentioned is differentiating the conditions from related somatic disorders.

Objective: The current study investigated changes in neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices since publication of the last North American survey targeting these issues in 2007 and explored emerging issues in validity testing that had not been previously addressed in the professional survey literature.Methods: Licensed North American neuropsychologists (n = 316), who primarily evaluate adults, were surveyed in regard to the following topics: (1) comparison of objective validity testing, qualitative data, and clinical judgment; (2) approaches to validity test administration; (3) formal communication in cases of suspected malingering; (4) reporting of validity test results; (5) suspected causes of invalidity; (6) integration of stand-alone, embedded, and symptom-report validity measures; (7) multiple performance validity test interpretation; (8) research practices; and (9) popularity of specific validity instruments.Results: Overall, findings from the current survey indicated that all but a small minority of respondents routinely utilize validity testing in their examinations. Furthermore, nearly all neuropsychologists surveyed believed formal validity testing to be mandatory in forensic evaluations and at least desirable in clinical evaluations. While results indicated general agreement among neuropsychologists across many aspects of validity testing, responses regarding some facets of validity test implementation, interpretation, and reporting were more variable. Validity testing utilization generally did not differ according to level of forensic involvement but did vary in respect to respondent literature consumption.Conclusions: Study findings differ significantly from past professional surveys and indicate an increased utilization of validity testing, suggesting a pronounced paradigm shift in neuropsychology validity testing beliefs and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has demonstrated RBS and FBS-r to identify non-credible reporters of cognitive symptoms, but the extent that these scales might be influenced by true neurocognitive dysfunction has not been previously studied. The present study examined the relationship between these cognitive validity scales and neurocognitive performance across seven domains of cognitive functioning, both before and after controlling forPVTstatus in 120 individuals referred for neuropsychological evaluations.Variance in RBS, but not FBS-r,was significantly accounted for by neurocognitive test performance across most cognitive domains. After controlling for PVT status, however, relationships between neurocognitive test performance and validity scales were no longer significant for RBS, and remained non-significant for FBS-r. Additionally, PVT failure accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in both RBS and FBS-r. Results support both the convergent and discriminant validity of RBS and FBS-r. As neither scale was impacted by true neurocognitive dysfunction, these findings provide further support for the use of RBS and FBS-r in neuropsychological evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monte Carlo simulations were utilized to determine the proportion of the normal population expected to have scale elevations on the MMPI-2-RF when multiple scores are interpreted. Results showed that when all 40 MMPI-2-RF scales are simultaneously considered, approximately 70% of normal adults are likely to have at least one scale elevation at or above 65T, and as many as 20% will have five or more elevated scales. When the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales are under consideration, 34% of normal adults have at least one elevated score. Interpretation of the Specific Problem Scales and Personality Psychopathology Five Scales – Revised also yielded higher than expected rates of significant scores, with as many as one in four normal adults possibly being miscategorized as having features of a personality disorder by the latter scales. These findings are consistent with the growing literature on rates of apparently abnormal scores in the normal population due to multiple score interpretation. Findings are discussed in relation to clinical assessment, as well as in response to recent work suggesting that the MMPI-2-RF’s multiscale composition does not contribute to high rates of elevated scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Designs subtest allows for accumulation of raw score points by chance alone, creating the potential for artificially inflated performances, especially in older patients. A random number generator was used to simulate the random selection and placement of cards by 100 test naive participants, resulting in a mean raw score of 36.26 (SD = 3.86). This resulted in relatively high-scaled scores in the 45–54, 55–64, and 65–69 age groups on Designs II. In the latter age group, in particular, the mean simulated performance resulted in a scaled score of 7, with scores 1 SD below and above the performance mean translating to scaled scores of 5 and 8, respectively. The findings indicate that clinicians should use caution when interpreting Designs II performance in these age groups, as our simulations demonstrated that low average to average range scores occur frequently when patients are relying solely on chance performance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Neuropsychiatric symptoms are common features of dementia, and these occur in three fourths of patients on psychogeriatric inpatient units. These symptoms have traditionally been treated with pharmacological agents, but many medications are as likely to harm patients with dementia as to help them. As a result, nonpharmacological interventions are increasingly being investigated as ways to reduce these symptoms. Objective: The current study evaluated the impact of an individualized music-based intervention on agitation, negative mood, positive mood, compliance with care, need for one-on-one nursing staff intervention, and need for PRN medication. Method: Participants in this study were older adults who were admitted to a geriatric behavioral inpatient unit for acute agitation or behavioral disturbance. Twenty patients were in a treatment as usual group and 21 were in the individualized music group. Results: Agitation, negative mood, and positive mood all benefited from the music-based intervention, with resulting large effect sizes. Resisting care level also significantly benefited from the intervention, with a resulting medium effect size. Conclusion: These findings indicate that an easily implemented and reproducible music-based intervention, which is well tolerated and without adverse side effects, can be an effective way to reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms associated with dementia on a hospital unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]