Search

AbstractDetecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction is a major issue in forensic context, particularly in legal proceeding/insurance assessment after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), condition frequently associated with persistent cognitive impairments that may potentially be related to malingering. Consequently, research has devoted considerable efforts on developing tools to verify symptoms authenticity. This study compared two freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs) (Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test—ASTM; Word Completion Memory Test—WCMT) and five embedded PVTs (Rey Complex Figure Test—RCFT—Copy and Recall trials; Reliable Digit Span—RDS; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test—RAVLT—Recognition and Total Learning trials) in a sample of 120 participants, including 15 patients with TBI (Mage = 44.40), 52 experimental simulators (Mage = 29.52) and 53 control (Mage = 29.77). Group performance was analyzed to assess tests’ discriminatory power, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to examine tools’ sensitivity and specificity. Results indicated that experimental simulators performance on the ASTM, WCMT, and RAVLT differed significantly from TBI patients and controls. The RDS and RCFT did not discriminate experimental simulators from TBI group. ROC curves analysis reveals that the most accurate tests in this battery for detecting malingering were the ASTM and the RAVLT-Total Learning score. This study offers implications for identifying malingering in medico-legal settings, underscoring the importance of incorporating PVTs into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine base rates of invalid performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) undertaking rehabilitation who were referred for clinical assessment, and the factors contributing to TOMM failure. Methods: Retrospective file review of consecutive TBI referrals for neuropsychological assessment over seven years. TOMM failure was conventionally defined as performance <45/50 on Trial 2 or Retention Trial. Demographic, injury, financial compensation, occupational, and medical variables were collected. Results: Four hundred and ninety one TBI cases (Median age = 40 years [IQR = 26–52], 79% male, 82% severe TBI) were identified. Overall, 48 cases (9.78%) failed the TOMM. Logistic regression analyses revealed that use of an interpreter during the assessment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.96–17.18), outpatient setting (aOR = 4.80, 95%CI = 1.87–12.31) and post-injury psychological distress (aOR = 2.77, 95%CI = 1.35–5.70) were significant multivariate predictors of TOMM failure. The TOMM failure rate for interpreter cases was 49% (21/43) in the outpatient setting vs. 7% (2/30) in the inpatient setting. By comparison, 9% (21/230) of non-interpreter outpatient cases failed the TOMM vs. 2% (4/188) of inpatient cases. Conclusions: TOMM failure very rarely occurs in clinical assessment of TBI patients in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. It is more common in the outpatient setting, particularly in non-English-speaking people requiring an interpreter. The findings reinforce the importance of routinely administering stand-alone performance validity tests in assessments of clinical TBI populations, particularly in outpatient settings, to ensure that neuropsychological test results can be interpreted with a high degree of confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study examined the relative contribution of performance and symptom validity in litigating adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI), as a function of TBI severity, and examined the relationship between self-reported emotional symptoms and cognitive tests scores while controlling for validity test performance. Method Participants underwent neuropsychological assessment between January 2012 and June 2021 in the context of compensation-seeking claims related to a TBI. All participants completed a cognitive test battery, the Personality Assessment Inventory (including symptom validity tests; SVTs), and multiple performance validity tests (PVTs). Data analyses included independent t -tests, one-way ANOVAs, correlation analyses, and hierarchical multiple regression. Results A total of 370 participants were included. Atypical PVT and SVT performance were associated with poorer cognitive test performance and higher emotional symptom report, irrespective of TBI severity. PVTs and SVTs had an additive effect on cognitive test performance for uncomplicated mTBI, but less so for more severe TBI. The relationship between emotional symptoms and cognitive test performance diminished substantially when validity test performance was controlled, and validity test performance had a substantially larger impact than emotional symptoms on cognitive test performance. Conclusion Validity test performance has a significant impact on the neuropsychological profiles of people with TBI, irrespective of TBI severity, and plays a significant role in the relationship between emotional symptoms and cognitive test performance. Adequate validity testing should be incorporated into every neuropsychological assessment, and associations between emotional symptoms and cognitive outcomes that do not consider validity testing should be interpreted with extreme caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Groningen Effort Test (GET) is a recently developed performance validity test (PVT) for the identification of noncredible performance in a neuropsychological assessment of attention abilities. Because the majority of already established PVTs are based on memory functions, the GET has the potential to make a valuable contribution to validity testing. Method: The current study examined the utility of the GET in the detection of feigned cognitive dysfunction after acquired brain injury (ABI) and its incremental validity over already established PVTs, namely the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), the Dot Counting Test (DCT), and the b Test. Three hundred and forty-eight participants took part in this study, including 58 patients with ABI (stroke or traumatic brain injury), 43 healthy individuals instructed to show normal behavior, and 247 healthy individuals instructed to feign cognitive dysfunction after ABI. Results: With excellent overall classification accuracy, the GET performed close to the level of the TOMM, and superior to the b Test and DCT. Data analyses further revealed that the GET provides additional diagnostic accuracy compared to the b Test and the DCT in the detection of feigned cognitive dysfunction, but has no incremental validity over the TOMM. For each of the four PVTs in this study, diagnostic sensitivity was independent of the simulation strategy used. Conclusions: It is concluded that the GET is an attention-based PVT with promising test characteristics and high diagnostic accuracy in the detection of noncredible cognitive performance using a simulation design. Given the results can be replicated in studies using known-groups methodology, it may be a useful tool for clinical practice to complement neuropsychological assessments of patients with ABI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embedded validity measures support comprehensive assessment of performance validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of individual embedded measures and to reduce them to the most efficient combination. The sample included 212 postdeployment veterans (average age = 35 years, average education = 14 years). Thirty embedded measures were initially identified as predictors of Green’s Word Memory Test (WMT) and were derived from the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II), Conners’ Continuous Performance Test-Second Edition (CPT-II), Trail Making Test, Stroop, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition Letter-Number Sequencing, Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, and the Finger Tapping Test. Eight nonoverlapping measures with the highest area-under-the-curve (AUC) values were retained for entry into a logistic regression analysis. Embedded measure accuracy was also compared to cutoffs found in the existing literature. Twenty-one percent of the sample failed the WMT. Previously developed cutoffs for individual measures showed poor sensitivity (SN) in the current sample except for the CPT-II (Total Errors, SN = .41). The CVLT-II (Trials 1–5 Total) showed the best overall accuracy (AUC = .80). After redundant measures were statistically eliminated, the model included the RCFT (Recognition True Positives), CPT-II (Total Errors), and CVLT-II (Trials 1–5 Total) and increased overall accuracy compared with the CVLT-II alone (AUC = .87). The combination of just 3 measures from the CPT-II, CVLT-II, and RCFT was the most accurate/efficient in predicting WMT performance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Evaluating performance validity is important in any neuropsychological assessment, and prior research recommends a threshold for invalid performance of two or more performance validity test (PVT) failures. However, extant findings also indicate that failing a single PVT is associated with significant changes in neuropsychological performance. The current study sought to determine if there is an appreciable difference in neuropsychological testing results between individuals failing different numbers of PVTs. In a sample of veterans with reported histories of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI; N =178), analyses revealed that individuals failing only one PVT performed significantly worse than individuals failing no PVTs on measures of verbal learning and memory, processing speed, and cognitive flexibility. Additionally, individuals failing one versus two PVTs significantly differed only on delayed free recall scores. The current findings suggest that failure of even one PVT should elicit consideration of performance invalidity, particularly in individuals with histories of mTBI. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]