Search

Objective: The Conners' Continuous Performance Test Second Edition (CPT-II) is a measure commonly used in persons with suspected attentional deficits. Our study examined the utility of the CPT-II as a measure of attention in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) of varying severity., Method: As part of a larger investigation, several measures of cognitive functioning, including the CPT-II, were administered to 30 healthy control participants (HCP), 30 mild TBI participants (M-TBI), and 30 moderate to severe TBI participants (MS-TBI). Multivariate and correlational analyses compared group performances and examined convergent and divergent relationships between the CPT-II and various measures, including other tests of attention and neuropsychological function., Results: Group differences were found for four of six CPT-II variables, with the MS-TBI group exhibiting greater impairment, relative to M-TBI and HCP. In addition, the CPT-II commission and detectability variables were found to correlate significantly with TBI severity. The CPT-II variables also demonstrated correlations of varying magnitude between commonly used neuropsychological measures., Conclusions: These findings support the utility of the CPT-II for assessing attentional abilities in persons with TBI of varying severity, particularly those with moderate to severe status. Moreover, the current study also demonstrates relationships that are consistent with convergent validity but inconsistent findings with regard to divergent validity. As a result, the CPT-II measures components of attention that is unique to other commonly used neuropsychological measures of attentive functioning. Further research examining CPT-II performance in TBI populations is recommended., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The current study investigated neuropsychologists' beliefs and practices with respect to assessing effort and malingering by surveying a sample of NAN professional members and fellows (n=712). The results from 188 (26.4%) returned surveys indicated that 57% of respondents frequently included measures of effort when conducting a neuropsychological evaluation. While a majority of respondents (52%) rarely or never provide a warning that effort indicators will be administered, 27% of respondents often or always provide such a warning. The five most frequently used measures of effort or response bias were the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), MMPI-2 F-K ratio, MMPI-2 FBS, Rey 15-item test, and the California Verbal Learning Test. However, the TOMM, Validity Indicator Profile, Word Memory Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and the Computerized Assessment of Response Bias were rated as most accurate for detecting suboptimal effort. These results and other findings are presented and discussed.

This study assessed the relationship between symptoms of psychopathology and cognitive functioning in clients completing comprehensive psychoeducational assessments at a university-based outpatient mental health clinic. Seventy clients (36 women, 34 men, mean age=28.8) completed the Wechsler Memory Scale-Third Edition (WMS-III), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III), and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second Edition (MMPI-2). Partial correlations between the MMPI-2 clinical scales, WMS-III Index scores, WAIS-III Index scores, and WAIS-III IQ scores were not significant. Memory and Intelligence scores for clients with comorbid symptoms of depression and anxiety were comparable to scores for clients without comorbid symptomatology. Psychopathology factors accounted for 22% of the variance in the WAIS-III Full Scale IQ and 6.5% of the variance in the WMS-III General Memory Index. The results suggest that psychopathology as measured by the MMPI-2 may be minimally associated with intelligence and memory test performance in adults seen for psychoeducational assessment.

The ability of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) to detect feigned-memory impairment was explored. The TOMM was administered to three groups: (a) a control group instructed to perform optimally, (b) a symptom-coached group instructed to feign memory problems after being educated about traumatic brain injury symptomatology, and (c) a test-coached group instructed to feign memory problems after being educated about test-taking strategies to avoid detection. The recommended cutoff scores (Tombaugh, 1996) on Trial 2 and the Retention Trial produced overall classification accuracy rates of 96%, with high levels of sensitivity and specificity. Although the symptom-coached group performed more poorly on the TOMM relative to the test-coached group, the test was equally sensitive in detecting suboptimal effort across the different coaching paradigms.