Search

The study examined the effect of preparation time and financial incentives on healthy adults' ability to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation. A retrospective comparison of two TBI simulator group designs: a traditional design employing a single-session of standard coaching immediately before participation (SIM-SC; n = 46) and a novel design that provided financial incentive and preparation time (SIM-IP; n = 49). Both groups completed an ecologically valid neuropsychological test battery that included widely-used cognitive tests and five common performance validity tests (PVTs). Compared to SIM-SC, SIM-IP performed significantly worse and had higher rates of impairment on tests of processing speed and executive functioning (Trails A and B). SIM-IP were more likely than SIM-SC to avoid detection on one of the PVTs and performed somewhat better on three of the PVTs, but the effects were small and non-significant. SIM-IP did not demonstrate significantly higher rates of successful simulation (i.e., performing impaired on cognitive tests with <2 PVT failures). Overall, the rate of the successful simulation was ∼40% with a liberal criterion, requiring cognitive impairment defined as performance >1 SD below the normative mean. At a more rigorous criterion defining impairment (>1.5 SD below the normative mean), successful simulation approached 35%. Incentive and preparation time appear to add limited incremental effect over traditional, single-session coaching analog studies of TBI simulation. Moreover, these design modifications did not translate to meaningfully higher rates of successful simulation and avoidance of detection by PVTs. [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]

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 We sought to determine the accuracy of embedded performance measures for the D–KEFS Color Word Interference Test that were recently proposed by Eglit et al. In particular, we wanted to determine if these indices would be associated with a specificity of at least.90, an Area Under the Curve of at least.70 and a positive likelihood ratio of at least 2. Method: We used logistic regression to investigate how well these indices could distinguish persons with traumatic brain injury (n = 169) who were evaluated within 1-12 months after injury. All participants had been classified on the basis of at least three independent performance validity tests as valid performance (n = 145) or invalid performance (n = 24). Results: None of the three indices that Eglit et al. had proposed as embedded performance measures for the D–KEFS Color Word Interference Test achieved the a priori defined minimally acceptable level of specificity. One of them did meet the criteria for Area Under the Curve as well as positive likelihood ratio. Conclusion: The current results do not support the application of the Eglit et al. embedded performance validity measures for the D–KEFS Color Word Interference Test in the clinical evaluation of patients with traumatic brain injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Adequate effort by examinees during neurocognitive testing is a prerequisite to valid interpretation of test results. Utilizing performance validity tests (PVTs) is strongly recommended within pediatric mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) populations. PVTs have historically been created based on majority-white and monolingual groups; investigating their validity in additional patient populations remains essential. The Automatized Sequencing Task (AST) was developed as a brief validity measure within mTBI youth (Kirkwood, et.al., 2014). This study aimed to examine the clinical utility of the AST among youth identifying as Hispanic/Latino and/or bilingual within a mTBI clinical sample. Participants and Methods: Participants ages 8-17 (N=103, M age=14.08, SD=2.2, 51.5% male, 42.7% Hispanic/Latino, 23.6% bilingual) were drawn from an outpatient mTBI/concussion program within the past 2.6 years. Median time of evaluation since injury was 3.7 weeks. Eligibility criteria included: 1) evaluated for a mTBI (GCS. 13) and 2) 8 through 17 years of age. Language status included English only and English-Spanish bilingual youth. Of the bilingual youth, 95% were considered English dominant. Youth were timed while reciting four well-learned (i.e., automatized) sequences as rapidly as possible: 1) the alphabet, 2) counting from 1-20, 3) the days of the week, and 4) the months of the year. Pass rates for the AST were examined using chi-square tests to compare performance based on ethnic/cultural identity (Hispanic vs Non-Hispanic), language status, age (children 8-12; teens 13-17), and gender. Results: In the clinical sample, 11.7% (n=12) could not complete AST months; 75% of non-completers were Hispanic/Latino. Participants who identified as Hispanic/Latino compared to Non-Hispanic/Latino participants were significantly more likely to fail the 4-item AST, χ2(1) =4.3, p <.05. The odds of failing the 4-item AST was 2.3 times higher if patients identified as Hispanic/Latino. Further, patients identifying as bilingual were even more likely to fail the 4-item AST, χ2(1) =4.5, p <.05. The odds of failing the 4-item AST was 3.0 times higher if patients were bilingual. There were no ethnicity or bilingual group differences in AST failure when examining performance on the 3-item AST. Neither age nor gender were a significant predictor of failure on the 3-item or 4-item AST. Conclusions: Results suggest that the month item on the AST does not function consistently across Hispanic/Latino and bilingual youth. It cannot be presumed to be 'automatic' as a significant number of Hispanic/Latino and/or bilingual patients were unable to complete the month item, but with otherwise intact performance on the first three items. Administering only the first three items on the AST appears to be a more culturally sensitive alternative given the increased odds of 4-item failure in Hispanic/Latino and bilingual youth. Additional research is needed to explore the predictive validity of the AST as a PVT in varying ethnic, culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse mTBI pediatric populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although studies have shown unique variance contributions from performance invalidity, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of cognitive data in the setting of failed performance validity tests (PVT). Furthermore, a clearer understanding of the clinical utility of cognitive data in the context of invalid PVTs is necessary to inform decisions about battery length once PVTs are failed. The primary aim of the current study is to broadly describe cognitive outcomes in the setting of PVT failure. Participants and Methods: Two hundred and twenty-two veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive and performance validity measures. Standardized scores were characterized as Within Normal Limits and Below Normal Limits at the normative 16th percentile and number of Within Normal Limits scores were calculated for each participant. Cognitive outcomes are described across four commonly used PVTs. Rates of below normal limits cognitive performance, and PVT failure were assessed via student's t tests among participants who were classified as productive or unproductive based on involvement in work and/or school. Results: Among participants who performed in the invalid range on TOMM trial 1, 36-81% of cognitive data reflected within normal limits performance. Similarly, 47-81% of those who demonstrated performance invalidity based on the Word Memory Test (WMT) earned broadly within normal limits scores across cognitive testing. For those with invalid performance based on the normative digit span scaled score, 35-88% of cognitive data was at or above the 16th percentile. Within normal limits across cognitive tests ranged from 16-71% when the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition forced choice was used as an indicator of performance validity. In the context of PVT failure, the average number of cognitive performances below the 16th percentile ranged from 5-7 of 14 tasks depending on which PVT measure was applied. Within the total sample, there were no differences in the total number of below normal limits performances on cognitive measures between productive and unproductive participants (T = 1.65, p = 1.00). Additionally, there were no differences in the total number of PVTs failed between the productive and unproductive groups (T = 0.33, p = 0.743). Conclusions: Results of the current study suggest that the range of within normal limits cognitive performance in the context of failed performance validity measures varies greatly. Importantly, findings indicate that neurocognitive data may still provide important practical information regarding cognitive abilities (i.e., that test takers can oftentimes perform within broadly normal limits on many cognitive tasks), despite poor PVT outcomes. Further, given that neither rates of below normal limits cognitive performance nor rates of PVT failures differed among productivity groups, results have important implications for decisions to continue testing and recommendations in a clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We developed the Shell Game Task (SGT) as a novel Performance Validity Test (PVT). While most PVTs use a forced-choice paradigm with "memory" as the primary domain being assessed, the SGT is a face-valid measure of attention and working memory. We explored the accuracy of the SGT to detect noncredible performance using a simulatordesign study. Participants and Methods: Ninety-four university students were randomly assigned to either best effort (CON) (n=49) or simulating traumatic brain injury (TBI) (SIM) (n=45) conditions. Participants completed a full battery of neuropsychological tests to simulate an actual evaluation, including the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the SGT. The SGT involves three cups and a red ball shown on the screen. Participants watch as the ball is placed under one of the three cups. Cups are then shuffled. Participants are asked to track the cup that contains the ball and correctly identify its location. We created two difficulty levels (easy vs hard, 20 trials each) by changing the number of times the cups were shuffled. Participants were given feedback (correct vs incorrect) after each trial. At the conclusion of the study, participants were asked about adherence to study directions they were given. Results: Participants with missing data (CON=1; SIM=2) or who reported non-adherence to study directions (CON=2; SIM=1) were removed from analyses. Twenty-five percent in SIM and 0% in CON failed TOMM Trial 2 (<45) suggesting adequate manipulation of groups. Groups were not different in age, gender, ethnicity, or education (all p's>.05). There were 9 participants in each group with concussion/TBI history. TBI history was not significantly related to performance on the SGT in either group, although participants with TBI history tended to do better. Average performances on TOMM Trial 1 (36.62 vs 47.91, p<.001) and TOMM Trial 2 (37.50 vs 49.71, p<.001) were significantly lower in the SIM group. Performance on SGT was also significantly lower in the SIM group across SGT Total Correct (20.17 vs 24.65 of 40, p=.008), SGT Easy (10.60 vs 13.52 of 20, p=.002), and SGT Hard (9.57 vs 11.13 of 20, p=.068). Mixed ANOVA showed a trend towards significant group by SGT difficulty interaction (F(1,86)=3.41, p=.052, np2=.043). There was steeper decline in performance on SGT Hard compared to SGT Easy for CON. ROC analyses suggested adequate but not ideal sensitivity/specificity: scores <8 on SGT Easy (sensitivity=26%; false positive=11%), <7 on SGT Hard (sensitivity=26%; false positive=7%), and <15 on SGT Total (sensitivity=24%; false positive=9%). Conclusions: These preliminary data indicate the SGT may be able to detect malingered TBI. However, additional development of this measure is necessary. Further refinement of difficulty level may improve sensitivity/specificity (e.g., CON mean performance for SGT Easy trails was 13.52, suggesting the items may be too difficult). This study was limited to an online administration due to COVID, which could have affected results; future studies should test inperson administration of the SGT. In addition, performance in clinical control groups (larger samples of individuals with mild TBI, ADHD) should be tested to better determine specificity for these preliminary cutoffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the convergent validity of the Test of Effort (TOE), a performance validity test (PVT) currently under development that employs a two-subtest (one verbal, one visual), forced-choice recognition memory format. A descriptive, correlational design was employed to describe performance on the TOE and examine the convergent validity between the TOE and comparison measures. A sample of 53 individuals with chronic acquired brain injury (ABI) were administered the TOE and three well-validated PVTs (Reliable Digit Span [RDS], Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM] and Dot Counting Test [DCT]). The TOE appeared more difficult than it actually was, suggesting adequate face validity. Medium-to-large correlations were observed between the TOE and established PVTs, suggesting good convergent validity. Provisional cutoff scores are offered based on performance of a subgroup of participants with "sufficient effort." Overall, the TOE shows promise as a PVT measure for clinical use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed to more fully determine the psychometric characteristics of the TOE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) Trail Making Test (TMT) is a commonly used measure of processing speed and executive functioning that may also be useful as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). We evaluated the utility of several multi-condition indices on the D-KEFS TMT in three independent samples to determine an optimal multi-condition index and cutoff on the D-KEFS TMT. Classification accuracy statistics for multiple multi-condition indices on the D-KEFS TMT were evaluated in three independent samples, including a sample with history of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI; n = 267) classified into psychometrically defined performance-valid and performance-invalid subgroups, the D-KEFS national normative sample (n = 1713), and a sample of middle- and older-aged adults diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 70). The D-KEFS TMT Conditions 1–5 summation index maximized sensitivity at.31 while maintaining adequate specificity at ≥.9. This index also had acceptable classification accuracy in both the D-KEFS national normative and MCI cross-validation samples, with the exception of the oldest subgroup of the national norming sample (i.e., individuals' ages 80–89), in which the observed failure rates for all multi-condition indices tested were greater than 10%. Our study provides support for the use the D-KEFS TMT Conditions 1–5 summation index as an embedded PVT among individuals younger than 80 years-old and from a range of conditions spanning from cognitively normal to mildly impaired; however, further validation is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Word Memory Test (WMT) assesses non-credible performance in neuropsychological assessment. To mitigate risk of false positives among patients with severe cognitive dysfunction, the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile was derived. Only a modest number of investigations has evaluated classification accuracy among clinical samples, leaving the GMIP's accuracy largely uncertain. Accordingly, a simulation experiment evaluated the classification accuracy of the GMIP in a group of healthy individuals coached to simulate mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) related memory impairment on the WMT. Eighty healthy individuals were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups. One group was provided superficial information concerning TBI symptoms (naïve simulators), another was provided extensive information concerning TBI symptoms (sophisticated simulators), and a third group was provided extensive TBI symptom information and tactics to evade detection by performance validity tests (PVT) (test-coached). An honest responding control group was directed to give their best performance. All participants were administered the California Verbal Learning Test-2 (CVLT-2) and the WMT. Among the TBI simulators, 90% of the test-coached, 95% of the sophisticated simulators, and 100% of the naïve simulators were correctly classified as exaggerating memory impairment on the primary WMT indices. The simulator groups performed worse than the honest responding group on the CVLT-2. Of those who exceeded the WMT cutoffs, 60%, 27%, and 6% of the naïve-, sophisticated-, and test-coached simulators manifested the GMIP profile, respectively. The GMIP is apt to misclassify individuals as having genuine memory impairment, especially if a naïve or unsophisticated effort is made to exert non-credible performance. Indeed, individuals who employ the least sophisticated efforts to exaggerate cognitive impairment appear most likely to manifest the GMIP. The GMIP should be used cautiously to discriminate genuine impairment from non-credible performance, especially among people with mild TBI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the presence of demographic, injury and neuropsychological correlates of distinct patterns of performance validity test and symptom validity test results in persons with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Method One hundred and seventy-eight persons with mTBI completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; performance validity) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; symptom validity) within 1–12 months postinjury. Four groups were compared: (a) pass both TOMM and MMPI-2-RF validity criteria, (b) pass TOMM and fail MMPI-2-RF, (c) fail TOMM and pass MMPI-2-RF, and (d) fail both TOMM and MMPI-2-RF. Results Compared to Group a, participants in combined Groups b–d were more than twice as likely to be engaged in financial compensation-seeking and about four times less likely to have neuroimaging evidence of an intracranial lesion. The average performance of Group d on an independent test of verbal learning was more than 1.5 standard deviations below that of Group a. Participants in Group b were more likely to have intracranial lesions on neuroimaging than participants in Group c. Conclusion Performance and symptom validity tests provide complementary and non-redundant information in persons with mTBI. Whereas financial compensation-seeking is associated with increased risk of failure of either PVT or SVT, or both, the presence of intracranial findings on neuroimaging is associated with decreased risk of such. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery, Screening Module (S-NAB) is a commonly used cognitive screening measure, no composite embedded performance validity test (PVT) formula has yet been described within it. This study sought to empirically derive PVT formulas within the S-NAB using an analog simulation paradigm. Seventy-two university students (M age = 18.92) were randomly assigned to either an Asymptomatic (AS) or simulated mild traumatic brain injury (S-mTBI) group and were administered a neuropsychological test battery that included the S-NAB and standalone and embedded PVTs. The AS group was instructed to perform optimally, and the S-mTBI group received symptom and test coaching to help simulate mTBI-related impairment. Both groups received warnings regarding the presence of PVTs throughout the test battery. Groups showed significant differences (all ps <.001) on all S-NAB domain scores and PVTs. In the S-NAB, the Attention (S-ATT) and Executive Function (S-EXE) domains showed the largest effect sizes (Cohen's ds = 2.02 and 1.79, respectively). Seven raw scores from S-ATT and S-EXE subtests were entered as predictor variables in a direct logistic regression (LR). The model accurately classified 90.3% of cases. Two PVT formulas were described: (1) an exponentiated equation from LR results and (2) an arithmetic formula using four individually meaningful variables. Both formulas demonstrated outstanding discriminability between groups (AUCs =.96–.97) and yielded good classification statistics compared to other PVTs. This study is the first to describe composite, embedded PVT formulas within the S-NAB. Implications, limitations, and appropriate future directions of inquiry are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recent consensus guidelines have advocated for the use of multivariate performance validity assessment on ability-based measures such those used in neuropsychological assessment. Further, previous research has demonstrated that aggregating performance validity indicators may produce superior classification accuracy. The present study builds upon this research by aggregating data from three of the most commonly used performance validity measures (Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM], Rey Fifteen Item Test with recognition trial [FIT plus recognition], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]) to create a performance validity composite measure in a veteran mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) population. Participants and Methods: Data of patients evaluated at a VA hospital who had completed the RDS, FIT plus recognition, and TOMM as part of their clinical neuropsychological evaluation were analyzed (n = 20). Two composite performance validity indexes were created: a Single Cutoff Performance Validity Index (SC-PVI), which measures the quantity of failures across performance validity measures (PVMs) by summing the total number of PVM failures, and a Multiple Cutoff Performance Validity Index (MC-PVI) which measures the number of failures as well as degree of failure(s) across measures of performance validity (e.g., a participant would attain a score of 3 if their PVM performance failed to reach a conservative cut point; they would obtain a score of 1 if they met conservative cut point, yet failed to reach a liberal cut point). Results: Only one participant (5%) attained a score of 0 on the SC-PVI (i.e., passing all PVTs using standard cutoffs) and MC-PVI (i.e., passing the most liberal cut points on all three PVMs). Conversely, eight participants (40%) attained a score of 3 on the SC-PVI (i.e., failed all three PVMs) and four participants (20%) attained a score of 9 (i.e., failed the most conservative cut points on all three PVMs). Results showed a significant (p <.001) ordinal association between the two indices (G =.984); however, there was no significant agreement between SC-PVI and MC-PVI models (k = -.087; p =.127). Conclusions: Data revealed discordant findings between the three PVMs utilized. The majority of participants (75%) scored between 2-8 on the MC-PVI, meaning that they did not exceed all liberal cut points or fail all conservative cut points. These "grey area" scores suggest an indeterminate range of performance validity, which cannot be captured by a solitary cut point or neatly classified as pass or fail. The utility of multiple cutoff performance validity models (i.e., aggregating PVMs to consider the severity of failure and number of failures) is that they capture the nuance of these data when determining and discussing the credibility of a profile. Multiple cut point data also highlight how the choice of cutoff influences the outcome of performance validity research and clinical decision making. As such, future research on the classification accuracy of this MC-PVI is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess noncredible performance on the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB), we developed embedded validity indicators (EVIs). Data were collected from 98 adults (54.1% female) as part of a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study at 4 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) specialty clinics. Traditional EVIs and novel item-based EVIs were developed for the NIHTB-CB using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) as criterion. The signal detection profile of individual EVIs varied greatly. Multivariate models had superior classification accuracy. Failing ≥4 traditional EVIs at the liberal cutoff or ≥3 at the conservative cutoff produced a good combination of sensitivity (.57 to .61) and specificity (.92 to .94) to MSVT. Combining the traditional and item-based EVIs improved sensitivity (.65 to .70) at comparable specificity (.91 to .95). In conclusion, newly developed EVIs within the NIHTB-CB effectively discriminated between patients who passed versus failed the MSVT. Aggregating EVIs within the same category into validity composites improved signal detection over univariate cutoffs. Item-based EVIs improved classification accuracy over that of traditional EVIs. However, the marginal gains hardly justify the burden of extra calculations. The newly introduced EVIs require cross-validation before wide-spread research or clinical application. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine clinically meaningful subgroups of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who have failed performance validity testing. Method: Study participants were selected from a cohort of 674 participants with definitive medical evidence of TBI. Participants were those who failed performance validity testing (the Word Memory Test, using the standard cutoffs). Participants were administered cognitive tests and self-report questionnaires. Test and questionnaire results were summarized as 12 dimension scores. Cluster analysis using the k-means method was performed. Results: Cluster analysis for the 143 retained participants indicated three subgroups. These subgroups differed on patterns of scores. Subgroup 1 was impaired for memory and had no excessive complaints. Subgroup 2 had impaired memory and processing speed as well as concern regarding cognition function. Subgroup 3 showed impairment on all cognitive tests and excess complaints in multiple areas. Conclusions: These results provide a preliminary basis for improved understanding of poor performance validity. [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]

The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) is a performance validity test (PVT) designed specifically for pediatric populations and utilizes specific cut-points for identifying noncredible performance at different ages. This study aims to evaluate the MVP using a known-groups design to determine optimal cut-off scores for detecting noncredible performance in youths with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) across different age-groups. Participants were 114 youths (age 5–17) with mTBI who were referred for neuropsychological evaluation in a hospital-based concussion clinic. All participants were administered the Nonverbal-Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT) and the MVP. Participants who failed the NV-MSVT were also administered the TOMM. Participants who failed both the NV-MSVT and the TOMM comprised the criterion group (i.e., the "Failed two PVTs" group). Participants who failed only one PVT were excluded from the analysis. ROC curve analyses revealed good discriminability (AUC =.844: 95%, CI = 676–1.0, p =.001) with acceptable sensitivity (.73) and specificity (.91) for an optimal MVP Total score cut-off ≤31. There were no differences in MVP Total scores across age-groups. In conclusion, adopting stricter cut-points for non-credible performance and applying these consistently across all age groups in a mTBI population increases the clinical utility of the MVP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study introduces the Verbal Associated Pairs Screen (VAPS) as a new measure for assessing performance validity in pediatric populations. This study presents initial data on psychometric properties and establishes construct validity for the VAPS in a sample of 30 adolescent healthy controls and 206 youths with traumatic brain injury (TBI: moderate/severe, N = 30; mild, N = 176). The control group's age (M = 14.93, SD = 1.8) was significantly higher than the moderate/severe TBI (M = 13.9, SD = 2.8), t(68.508) = −3.038, p =.003, and mild TBI (mTBI) groups (M = 14, SD = 2.8), t(54.147) = 2.038, p =.046. The TBI groups were administered the VAPS in accord with other established performance validity tests (PVTs) and well-established memory tests as part of routine clinical evaluations. The healthy control group was administered the VAPS only. VAPS score distributions for the control group were negatively skewed and highly kurtotic. VAPS scores from the moderate/severe TBI and control groups were indistinguishable for Trial 2 (U = 274, p <.01) and the Delay (U = 396, p =.218). In the mTBI group, convergent and divergent validity was established with other well-validated PVTs and memory tests, respectively. ROC curve analyses identified optimal cutoff scores for the VAPS Total Score, with acceptable sensitivity (55%) and excellent specificity (100%), as well as strong detectability (AUC =.829, 95% CI: 0.731 – 0.928, p <.001). Clinical applications, limitations, and directions for future research with the VAPS are discussed. [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]