Search

Background: Symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) are important tools in sociomedical assessments, especially in the psychosomatic context where diagnoses mainly depend on clinical observation and self-report measures. This study examined the relationship between reaction times (RTs) and scores on the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). It was proposed that slower RTs and larger standard deviations of reaction times (RTSDs) would be observed in participants who scored above the SIMS cut-off (>16). Methods: Direct surface electromyography (EMG) was used to capture RTs during a computer-based RT test in 152 inpatients from a psychosomatic rehabilitation clinic in Germany. Correlation analyses and Mann-Whitney U were used to examine the relationship between RTs and SIMS scores and to assess the potential impact of covariates such as demographics, medical history, and vocational challenges on RTs. Therefore, dichotomized groups based on each potential covariate were compared. Results: Significantly longer RTs and larger RTSDs were found in participants who scored above the SIMS cut-off. Current treatment with psychopharmacological medication, diagnosis of depression, and age had no significant influence on the RT measures. However, work-related problems had a significant impact on RTSDs. Conclusion: There was a significant relationship between longer and more inconsistent RTs and indicators of exaggerated or feigned symptom report on the SIMS in psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatients. Findings from this study provide a basis for future research developing a new RT-based PVT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Differential diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common referral questions for neuropsychological evaluation but is complicated by the presence of external incentives. Validity assessment is therefore critical in such evaluations, employing symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess the validity of reported symptoms and cognitive test performance, respectively. This study aimed to establish the base rate of symptom and performance invalidity in adults referred for ADHD, compare concordance between performance and symptom validity, and assess the impact of each type of validity on cognitive test performance. Method: This consecutive case series included data from 392 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. All patients were administered the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) and a uniform cognitive test battery, including seven PVTs. Results: Invalid symptom reporting and PVT performance were found in 22% and 16% of the sample, respectively. Sixty-eight percent had concordantly valid SVTs/PVTs and 6% had invalid SVTs/PVTs, whereas the remaining 26% had either invalid SVTs or PVTs (but not both). Invalid PVT performance resulted in a significant decrease across all cognitive test scores, with generally large effects (ηp2=.01-.18). Invalid symptom reporting had minimal effects on cognitive test performance (ηp2= ≤.04). Conclusions: PVTs and SVTs are dissociable and therefore should not be used interchangeably in the context of adult ADHD evaluations. Rather, symptom and performance validity should continue to be assessed independently as they provide largely non-redundant information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examined disability-related factors as predictors of PVT performance in Veterans who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for clinical purposes, not for determination of disability benefits. Method: Participants were 1,438 Veterans who were seen for clinical evaluation in a VA Medical Center's Neuropsychology Clinic. All were administered the TOMM, MSVT, or both. Predictors of PVT performance included (1) whether Veterans were receiving VA disability benefits ("service connection") for psychiatric or neurological conditions at the time of evaluation, and (2) whether Veterans reported on clinical interview that they were in the process of applying for disability benefits. Data were analyzed using binary logistic regression, with PVT performance as the dependent variable in separate analyses for the TOMM and MSVT. Results: Veterans who were already receiving VA disability benefits for psychiatric or neurological conditions were significantly more likely to fail both the TOMM and the MSVT, compared to Veterans who were not receiving benefits for such conditions. Independently of receiving such benefits, Veterans who reported that they were applying for disability benefits were significantly more likely to fail the TOMM and MSVT than were Veterans who denied applying for benefits at the time of evaluation. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that simply being in the process of applying for disability benefits increases the likelihood of noncredible performance. The presence of external incentives can predict the validity of neuropsychological performance even in clinical, non-forensic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Performance validity assessment is an important component of concussion baseline testing and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is the most commonly used test in this setting. A review of invalid performance on ImPACT was published in 2017, focusing largely on the default embedded validity indicator (Default EVI) provided within the test. There has since been a proliferation in research evaluating the classification accuracy of the Default EVI against independently developed, alternative ImPACT-based EVIs, necessitating an updated review. The purpose of this study was to provide an up-to-date review of the prevalence of invalid performance on ImPACT and to examine the relative effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs. Method: Literature related to the prevalence of invalid performance on ImPACT and the effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs, published between January 2000 and May 2020, was critically reviewed. Results: A total of 23 studies reported prevalence of invalid performance at baseline testing using ImPACT. Six percent of baseline assessments were found to be invalid by the ImPACT's Default EVI, and between 22.31% and 34.99% were flagged by alternative EVIs. Six studies assessed the effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs, with the Default EVI correctly identifying experimental malingerers only 60% of the time. Alternative ImPACT-based EVIs identified between 73% and 100% of experimental malingerers. Conclusions: The ImPACT's Default EVI is not sufficiently sensitive, and clinicians should consider alternative indicators when assessing invalid performance. Accordingly, the base rate of invalid performance in athletes at baseline testing is likely well above the 6% previously reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The addition of Sequencing to WAIS-IV Digit Span (DS) brought about new Reliable Digit Span (RDS) indices and an Age-Corrected Scaled Score that includes Sequencing trials. Reports have indicated that these new performance validity tests (PVTs) are superior to the traditional RDS; however, comparisons in the context of known neurocognitive impairment are sparse. This study compared DS-derived PVT classification accuracies in a design that included adults with verified TBI. Methods: Participants included 64 adults with moderate-to-severe TBI (TBI), 51 healthy adults coached to simulate TBI (SIM), and 78 healthy comparisons (HC). Participants completed the WAIS-IV DS subtest in the context of a larger test battery. Results: Kruskal–Wallis tests indicated that all DS indices differed significantly across groups. Post hoc contrasts revealed that only RDS Forward and the traditional RDS differed significantly between SIM and TBI. ROC analyses indicated that RDS variables were comparable predictors of SIM vs. HC; however, the traditional RDS showed the highest sensitivity when approximating 90% specificity for SIM vs. TBI. A greater percentage of TBI scored RDS Sequencing < 1 compared to SIM and HC. Conclusion: In the context of moderate-to-severe TBI, the DS-derived PVTs showed comparable discriminability. However, the Greiffenstein et al. traditional RDS demonstrated the best classification accuracy with respect to specificity/sensitivity balance. This relative superiority may reflect that individuals with verified TBI are more likely to perseverate on prior instructions during DS Sequencing. Findings highlight the importance of including individuals with verified TBI when evaluating and developing PVTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to determine whether negative validity test findings should be used in the Bayesian aggregate along with positive test findings for the determination of malingering as the condition of interest (COI). Method: Evidence-based diagnostic methods for conditions in neuropsychology and medicine were reviewed for comparison with their use in cases of malingering. Logical and Bayesian analyses of these cases were applied. A case study showed that negative validity test findings did not indicate "good effort". Results: Deception about illness is fundamentally different from other constructs/diseases in evidence-based medicine and neuropsychology. This is because deception involves a deliberate process that may involve coaching, claimant research, and/or focusing the deception on one aspect (e.g., slowness) as opposed to other neurocognitive problems (e.g., memory). Comparatively, other conditions in medicine and neuropsychology are unlikely to be manipulated by the patient. Conclusions: The assertion by Frederick (2015) and Black, Necrason, and Omasta (2016) that both positive and negative validity test findings must be used together in the aggregate does not stand up to this comparative scrutiny. The fundamental assumption by these authors that a negative test finding concerning malingering represents "good effort" is flawed; it simply represents lack of evidence of malingering, which cannot be construed as evidence of lack of malingering. We recommend that in forensic determination of malingering, negative validity test findings should not be used in a Bayesian aggregation. This conclusion is consistent with current practices in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinical evaluation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) not only requires assessment of symptoms, but also consideration of the degree to which symptoms lead to impairment within various functional domains. However, ADHD evaluations in adulthood often rely on self-reported functional impairment, which might be vulnerable to malingering/noncredible responding. The present study utilized a clinical sample/known groups design to examine the relationship of noncredible presentation to functional impairment ratings by analyzing differential associations with both symptom and performance validity tests (SVTs and PVTs). Method: Participants were 168 postsecondary students who completed psychoeducational assessments for ADHD to determine their eligibility for academic accommodations and/or medications. Impairment ratings on the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS) of 71 students who presented in a noncredible fashion were compared to 72 students who appeared to present credibly (controls) and 25 students diagnosed with ADHD who appeared to present credibly (clinical controls). Results: Relative to both control groups, individuals who presented noncredibly reported higher levels of disability on most functional domains and a higher percentage provided responses that fell in the impaired range on all functional domains of the WFIRS. Conclusions: Findings provide additional evidence that ADHD-related functional impairment ratings are susceptible to noncredible presentation and highlight the need for assessors to include both SVTs and PVTs in ADHD evaluations. [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]

This study was designed to replicate previous research on embedded validity indicators (EVIs) in the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised (HVLT-R) and introduce a new forced choice recognition trial (FCR). Undergraduate research volunteers were randomly assigned (MAge = 21.7; MEducation = 14.5 years, 85% female) to either the control or experimental malingering condition, and were administered a brief battery of neuropsychological tests. Recognition memory based EVIs (both existing and newly introduced) effectively discriminated credible and non-credible response sets. An FCR ≤11 produced.59 sensitivity and perfect specificity to invalid responding. A Recognition Discrimination (RD) score ≤8 also produced a good combination of sensitivity (.35) and specificity (.96). The FCR trial made unique contributions to performance validity assessment above and beyond previously published EVIs. RD achieved ≥.90 specificity at higher cutoffs than previously reported. The newly introduced FCR trial has the potential to enhance the existing arsenal of EVIs within the HVLT-R. However, it must demonstrate its ability to differentiate genuine impairment from non-credible responding before it can be recommended for clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Administration of performance validity tests (PVT) during neuropsychological assessments is standard practice, with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) being a commonly used measure. The TOMM has been well validated in hearing populations with various medical and psychiatric backgrounds. A major gap in the literature is the use of the TOMM amongst culturally Deaf individuals who use American Sign Language (ASL) as their first and preferred language. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of the TOMM with this population to determine if there may be differences related to the use of semantic knowledge and recall using signs rather than spoken phonemes. This study recruited 30 culturally Deaf, community-dwelling adults, who self-reported that they were not involved in litigation ordisability claims. In addition to the TOMM, participants were screened for cognitive ability using non-verbal components of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II) and the Mini Mental State Examination: ASL Version (MMSE:ASL). Nonverbal intelligence for this sample was within the average range of ability. No participants scored lower than the standard cut-off score for Trial 2 or the Retention Trial on the TOMM (≤44 raw score to indicate invalid responding). Trial 1 performances ranged from 44 to 50, Trial 2 performances ranged from 49 to 50, and Retention performances ranged from 49 to 50. These results support the use of the same standard cut-off scores established for hearing individuals in culturally Deaf individuals who use ASL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper aims to develop diagnostic criteria for factitious disorder (FD) and a heuristic for research by creating standards for delineating criterion groups. Method: Both FD and malingering are conceptualized within a rubric of illness-deception. The history of FD research was compared to the research history on malingering. Differences in the measurement of these constructs were described. The potential utility of performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) in FD is discussed in light of successful applications in malingering. Methods for obtaining evidence for FD are delineated in a table of diagnostic criteria. Results: The comparison of FD and malingering research shows that the scientific measurement of malingering evolved rapidly with the introduction of forced-choice validity testing and cogent guidelines for the formation of criterion groups. Likewise, PVTs and SVTs hold promise as methods of measuring deceptive behavior in FD. The most salient differences between FD and malingering are understood to be matter of context/setting: malingering occurs in an external incentive context, while FD occurs in a medical/psychological context. Guidelines to assess FD are developed to fill the need for known-groups research. Conclusions: Evidence for FD, a form of illness-deception, can be obtained by using validity testing, which, together with careful clinical observation, allows for the development of probabilistic diagnostic criteria. Similar to the other form of illness-deception – malingering – these criteria can be used to form known groups for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of clinical neuropsychology, research on performance and symptom validity testing (PVT/SVT) spans over 4 decades. The figure illustrates the number of neuropsychology-relevant publications (i.e., with the word "neuropsycholog*" appearing anywhere in text) that focus on PVT/SVT issues across all peer-reviewed journals catalogued in the PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. I The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) i has been an important outlet for PVT/SVT researchers, publishing approximately 20% of PVT/SVT articles across all peer-reviewed journals SP 1 sp since its inception in 1987 (see Figure 2). To acknowledged I TCN i 's continued role in serving as an outlet for PVT/SVT research, as well as to highlight the current research trends, I TCN i has bundled 11 recent PVT/SVT submissions into this special issue.[2]. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Performance validity tests (PVTs) are essential in neuropsychological evaluations; however, it has been questioned how PVTs function in the context of cognitive impairment, and whether cognitive impairment alone is sufficient to cause PVT failure. Further, there is concern that some clinicians will disregard failed PVTs due to their perception that failures represent false-positive errors secondary to cognitive impairment. This study examined patterns associated with cognitively impaired versus noncredible performance across a battery of PVTs and neuropsychological tests. Additionally, the impact of VA service-connection and disability-seeking status on test validity was investigated. Method: A mixed-clinical sample of 103 veterans were administered six PVTs and neuropsychological tests. Performance was compared across three groups: valid-cognitively unimpaired, valid-cognitively impaired, and noncredible. Results: Significant PVT score differences and failure rates emerged across the three groups, with nonsignificant to small differences between valid-unimpaired and valid-impaired groups, and large differences between impaired and noncredible groups. In contrast, there were nonsignificant to small differences on neuropsychological tests between the valid-impaired and noncredible groups, indicating that impaired participants performed significantly better on PVTs despite comparable neurocognitive test scores. Service-connection rating itself was not associated with PVT failure, but an active disability claim to increase and/or establish service connection was associated with worse PVT performance. Conclusion: This study supports the use of multiple PVTs during evaluations of patients with varied cognitive abilities. Results indicated increased risk of PVT failure in patients who were seeking initiation/increase in service-connected payments, and shows that cognitive impairment does not cause PVT failure. [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]

Objective:This study synthesized research evaluation of the effectiveness of the over-reporting validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) for detecting intentionally feigned over-endorsements of symptoms using a moderated meta-analysis.Method:After identifying experimental and quasi-experimental studies for inclusion (k = 25) in which the validity scales of the MMPI-2-RF were compared between groups of respondents, moderated meta-analyses were conducted for each of its five over-reporting scales. These meta-analyses explored the general effectiveness of each scale across studies, as well as the impact that several moderators had on scale performance, including comparison group, study type (i.e. real versus simulation), age, education, sex, and diagnosis.Results:The over-reporting scales of the MMPI-2-RF act as effective general measures for the detection of malingering and over endorsement of symptoms with individual scales ranging in effectiveness from an effect size of 1.08 (Symptom Validity; FBS-r) to 1.43 (Infrequent Pathology; Fp-r), each with different patterns of moderating influence.Conclusions:The MMPI-2-RF validity scales effectively discriminate between groups of respondents presenting in either an honest manner or with patterned exaggeration and over-endorsement of symptoms. The magnitude of difference observed between honest and malingering groups was substantially narrower than might be expected using traditional cut-scores for the validity scales, making interpretation within the evaluation context particularly important. While all over-reporting scales are effective, the FBS-r and RBS scales are those least influenced by common and context specific moderating influences, such as respondent or comparison grouping. [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]