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]