Search

Objectives: This study investigated the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) subtest as an embedded performance validity indicator among adults undergoing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation, and its potential incremental value over Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Method: This cross-sectional study comprised 543 adults who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into valid (n = 480) and invalid (n = 63) groups based on multiple criterion performance validity tests. Results: LNS total raw scores, age-corrected scaled scores, and age- and education-corrected T-scores demonstrated excellent classification accuracy (area under the curve of.84,.83, and.82, respectively). The optimal cutoff for LNS raw score (≤16), age-corrected scaled score (≤7), and age- and education-corrected T-score (≤36) yielded.51 sensitivity and.94 specificity. Slightly lower sensitivity (.40) and higher specificity (.98) was associated with a more conservative T-score cutoff of ≤33. Multivariate models incorporating both LNS and RDS improved classification accuracy (area under the curve of.86), and LNS scores explained a significant but modest proportion of variance in validity status above and beyond RDS. Chaining LNS T-score of ≤33 with RDS cutoff of ≤7 increased sensitivity to.69 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the criterion and construct validity of LNS as an embedded validity indicator in ADHD evaluations. Practitioners are encouraged to use LNS T-score cutoff of ≤33 or ≤36 to assess the validity of obtained test data. Employing either of these LNS cutoffs with RDS may enhance the detection of invalid performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjectiveMethodResultsConclusionsThe study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various degrees of failure (EI-ACS).The standard ACS model correctly classified 75–83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80–91% (VI-ACS) and 86–91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Professionals are encouraged to include multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) and multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess the credibility of clinical and forensic presentations. Combining the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29, an SVT) with its Memory module (IOP-M, a PVT), referred to here as ‘IOP-29-M’, may be especially beneficial, as it allows for rapid assessment of both symptom and performance validity. Accordingly, the present study aimed at ‘stress testing’ the IOP-29-M by examining base rates of failure (BRFail) in 109 patients with schizophrenia spectrum psychopathology, both with and without criminal convictions. In the overall sample, BRFail were low: 13.8% and 8.3%, respectively, for the standard (≥ .50) and conservative (≥ .65) cutoffs of the IOP-29, and 12.8% and 9.2%, respectively, for the standard (≤ 29) and conservative (≤ 28) cutoffs of the IOP-M. Importantly, very few individuals, less than 5%, failed both components of the IOP-29-M. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is a widely used performance validity measure that is available in both English and Spanish. The Spanish version, however, has historically lacked normative data from samples that are representative of the U.S. Hispanic/Spanish speaking population.The aim of the current study was to collect normative data on the update TOMM 2 for Hispanic individuals residing in the U.S.Normative data on the TOMM 2 was collected across 9 sites from different regions of the U.S. The total sample consisted of n = 188 cognitively healthy adults aged 18 and over with no current or prior history of neurological or psychiatric disorder. Descriptive analyses were performed on total raw scores.Participants obtained a mean score of 48.15 (SD = 2.81) on trial 1 of the TOMM 2, 49.86 (SD = 0.487) on trial 2, and 49.84 (SD = 0.509) on the recognition trial. Scores are provided for traditional cutoff scores as well as some popular cutoffs reported in the literature. Item level analyses were conducted as well as evaluation of performance based on a variety of demographics.When compared to the English-speaking normative sample used for the original TOMM, this sample demonstrated better performance on the TOMM 2 indicating better cultural appropriateness of the items. This is the first study conducted that provides culturally appropriate descriptive norms for use with Spanish speakers living in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate multiple embedded performance validity indicators within the Digits Forward and Digits Backward subtests of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB), including Reliable Digit Span (RDS), as no published papers have examined embedded digit span validity indicators within these subtests of the NAB. Retrospective archival chart review was conducted at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants were 92 adults (ages 19−68) who completed NAB Digits Forward and Digits Backward, and the Word Choice Test (WCT). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, t-tests, and sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted. Analyses showed that RDS demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy between those who passed the WCT and those who did not. The area under the curve (AUC) value for RDS was 0.702; however, AUC values for all other digit span indices were unacceptably low. The optimal cutoff for RDS was identified (<8). RDS for the NAB appears to be an adequate indicator of performance validity; however, considering the very small number of participants who were invalid on the WCT (n = 15), as well as the utilization of only one stand-alone PVT to classify validity status, these findings are preliminary and in need of replication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was designed to investigate the cross-cultural validity of two freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs), the Test of Memory Malingering – Trial 1 (TOMM-1) and the Rey Fifteen Item Test (Rey-15) in Romanian-speaking patients. Methods: The TOMM-1 and Rey-15 free recall (FR) and the combination score incorporating the recognition trial (COMB) were administered to a mixed clinical sample of 61 adults referred for cognitive evaluation, 24 of whom had external incentives to appear impaired. Average scores on PVTs were compared between the two groups. Classification accuracies were computed using one PVT against another. Results: Patients with identifiable external incentives to appear impaired produced significantly lower scores and more errors on validity indicators. The largest effect sizes emerged on TOMM-1 (Cohen's d = 1.00–1.19). TOMM-1 was a significant predictor of the Rey-15 COMB ≤20 (AUC =.80;.38 sensitivity;.89 specificity at a cutoff of ≤39). Similarly, both Rey-15 indicators were significant predictors of TOMM-1 at ≤39 as the criterion (AUCs =.73–.76;.33 sensitivity;.89–.90 specificity). Conclusion: Results offer a proof of concept for the cross-cultural validity of the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian clinical sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are commonly reported in individuals presenting for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are essential to ADHD evaluations in young adults, but extant research suggests that those who report ACEs may be inaccurately classified as invalid on these measures. The current study aimed to assess the degree to which ACE exposure differentiated PVT and SVT performance and ADHD symptom reporting in a multi-racial sample of adults presenting for ADHD evaluation. Method This study included 170 adults referred for outpatient neuropsychological ADHD evaluation who completed the ACE Checklist and a neurocognitive battery that included multiple PVTs and SVTs. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in PVT and SVT performance among those with high (≥4) and low (≤3) reported ACEs. Results Main effects of the ACE group were observed, such that high ACE group reporting demonstrated higher scores on SVTs assessing ADHD symptom over-reporting and infrequent psychiatric and somatic symptoms on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Conversely, no significant differences emerged in total PVT failures across ACE groups. Conclusions Those with high ACE exposure were more likely to have higher scores on SVTs assessing over-reporting and infrequent responses. In contrast, ACE exposure did not affect PVT performance. Thus, ACE exposure should be considered specifically when evaluating SVT performance in the context of ADHD evaluations, and more work is needed to understand factors that contribute to different patterns of symptom reporting as a function of ACE exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe assessment of performance validity is an important consideration to the interpretation of neuropsychological data. However, commonly used performance validity tests such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Word Memory Test (WMT) have lengthy administration times (20–30 minutes). Alternatively, utilizing a screener of performance validity (e.g., the TOMM T1 or TOMMe10) has proven to be an effective method of assessing performance validity while conserving time. The present study investigates the use of the WMT Immediate Recognition (IR) Trial scores as a screening measure for performance validity using an archival mTBI polytrauma sample (n = 48). Results show that the WMT IR demonstrates a high degree of accuracy in predicting WMT Delayed Recognition (DR) Trial performance across a range of base rates suggesting that the WMT IR is a useful screening measure for noncredible performance. Clinical implications and selection of optimal cutoff are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Intraindividual variability across a battery of neuropsychological tests (IIV-dispersion) can reflect normal variation in scores or arise from cognitive impairment. An alternate interpretation is IIV-dispersion reflects reduced engagement/invalid test data, although extant research addressing this interpretation is significantly limited. Method: We used a sample of 97 older adult (mean age: 69.92), predominantly White (57%) or Black/African American (34%), and predominantly cis-gender male (87%) veterans. Examinees completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, including measures of reduced engagement/invalid test data (a symptom validity test [SVT], multiple performance validity tests [PVTs]), as part of a clinical evaluation. IIV-dispersion was indexed using the coefficient of variance (CoV). We tested 1) the relationships of raw scores and "failures" on SVT/PVTs with IIV-dispersion, 2) the relationship between IIV-dispersion and validity/neurocognitive disorder status, and 3) whether IIV-dispersion discriminated the validity/neurocognitive disorder groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: IIV-dispersion was significantly and independently associated with a selection of PVTs, with small to very large effect sizes. Participants with invalid profiles and cognitively impaired participants with valid profiles exhibited medium to large (d =.55–1.09) elevations in IIV-dispersion compared to cognitively unimpaired participants with valid profiles. A non-significant but small to medium (d =.35–.60) elevation in IIV-dispersion was observed for participants with invalid profiles compared to those with a neurocognitive disorder. IIV-dispersion was largely accurate at differentiating participants without a neurocognitive disorder from invalid participants and those with a neurocognitive disorder (areas under the Curve [AUCs]=.69–.83), while accuracy was low for differentiating invalid participants from those with a neurocognitive disorder (AUCs=.58–.65). Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest IIV-dispersion may be sensitive to both neurocognitive disorders and compromised engagement. Clinicians and researchers should exercise due diligence and consider test validity (e.g. PVTs, behavioral signs of engagement) as an alternate explanation prior to interpretation of intraindividual variability as an indicator of cognitive impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractRecent reports indicate that the Memory Integrated Language Test (MIL) and Making Change Test Abbreviated Index (MCT-AI), two web-based performance validity tests (PVTs), have good sensitivity and specificity when used independently. This study investigated whether using these PVTs together could improve the detection of invalid performance in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample. Participants were 129 adult outpatients who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation and were classified into valid (n = 104) or invalid (n = 25) performance groups based on several commonly used PVTs. Using cut scores of ≤41 on the MIL and ≥1.05 on the MCT-AI together enhanced classification accuracy, yielding an area under the curve of .84 (95% CI: .75, .93). As compared to using the MIL and MCT-AI independently, the combined use increased the sensitivity from .10-.31 to.70 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Findings also indicated that failing either the MIL or MCT-AI was associated with somewhat lower cognitive test scores, but failing both was associated with markedly lower scores. Overall, using the MIL and MCT-AI together may be an effective way to identify invalid test performance during a neuropsychological evaluation. Furthermore, pairing these tests is consistent with current practice guidelines to include multiple PVTs in a neuropsychological test battery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjective: Performance below the actual abilities of the examinee can be measured using performance validity tests (PVTs). PVT failure negatively impacts the quality of the neuropsychological assessment. In our study, we addressed this issue by providing a brief corrective statement regarding invalidity to improve test-taking behavior. Methods: This study is a multisite single-blind randomized controlled trial in a consecutive sample of clinically referred adult patients (N = 196) in a general hospital setting. Patients who failed a PVT (n = 71) were randomly allocated to a corrective statement approach (CS; n = 39), in which a brief verbal corrective statement was given by the technician, or received no corrective statement upon indications of invalid performance (NO-CS; n = 32). Both groups (CS and NO-CS) were provided with the same subsequently repeated and newly administered tests. Results: There were no group (CS vs. NO-CS) differences on both the repeated and single-administered PVTs and standard cognitive tests. Furthermore, invalid performing participants benefited significantly less from the repeated test administration compared to the valid performing group. Conclusions: Our study found that a brief corrective within-session statement, to address PVT failure and improve test-taking behavior, did not improve consequent test performance. These results suggest limited value of a brief verbal corrective statement to influence performance below best of capabilities. It highlights the need for more research to identify more effective approaches that can enhance patients test-taking behavior. Ultimately, such efforts are critical in ensuring accurate diagnosis and effective treatment recommendations for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examined the impact of impairment in two specific cognitive abilities, processing speed and memory, on Dot Counting Test (DCT) classification accuracy by evaluating performance validity classification accuracy across cognitively unimpaired, single-domain impairment, and multidomain impairment subgroups within a mixed clinical sample. Method: Cross-sectional data were analyzed from 348 adult outpatients classified as valid (n = 284) or invalid (n = 64) based on four independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Unimpaired (n = 164), single-domain processing speed impairment (n = 24), single-domain memory impairment (n = 53), and multidomain processing speed and memory impairment (n = 43) clinical subgroups were established among the valid group. Both the traditional DCT E-score and unrounded E-score were examined. Results: Overall, the DCT demonstrated acceptable to excellent classification accuracy across the unimpaired (area under the curve [AUC] traditional E-score=.855; unrounded E-score=.855) and single-domain impairment groups (traditional E-score AUCs =.690–.754; unrounded E-score AUCs =.692–747). However, it did not reliably discriminate the multidomain processing speed and memory impairment group from the invalid performers (traditional and unrounded E-scores AUC =.557). Conclusions: Findings support the DCT as a non-memory-based freestanding PVT for use with single-domain cognitive impairment, with traditional E-score ≥17 (unrounded E-score ≥16.95) recommended for those with memory impairment and traditional E-score ≥19 (unrounded ≥18.08) with processing speed impairment. Moreover, results replicated previously established optimal cutoffs for unimpaired groups using both the traditional (≥14) and unrounded (≥13.84) E-scores. However, the DCT did not reliably discriminate between invalid performance and multidomain cognitive impairment, indicating caution is warranted when using the DCT with patients suspected of greater cognitive impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When patients fail symptom validity tests (SVTs) and/or performance validity tests (PVTs), their self-reported symptoms and test profiles are unreliable and cannot be taken for granted. There are many well-established causes of poor symptom validity and malingering is only of them. Some authors have proposed that a cry for help may underlie poor symptom validity. In this commentary, we argue that cry for help is a (1) metaphorical concept that is (2) difficult to operationalize and, at present, (3) impossible to falsify. We conclude that clinicians or forensic experts should not invoke cry for help as an explanation for poor symptom validity. To encourage conceptual clarity, we propose a tentative framework for explaining poor symptom validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated abbreviation methods for the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in relation to traditional manual-based test cutoffs and independently derived more stringent cutoffs suggested by recent research (≤48 on Trial 2 or 3). Consecutively referred outpatient U.S. military veterans (n = 260) were seen for neuropsychological evaluation for mild traumatic brain injury or possible attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Performance on TOMM Trial 1 was evaluated, including the total score and errors on the first 10 items (TOMMe10), to determine correspondence and redundancy with Trials 2 and 3. Using the traditional cutoff, valid performance on Trials 2 and 3 was predicted by zero errors on TOMMe10 and by Trial 1 scores greater than 41. Invalid performance was predicted by commission of more than three errors on TOMMe10 and by Trial 1 scores less than 34. For revised TOMM cutoffs, a Trial 1 score above 46 was predictive of a valid score, and a TOMMe10 score of three or more errors or a Trial 1 score below 36 was associated with invalid TOMM performance. Conditional abbreviation of the TOMM is feasible in a vast majority of cases without sacrificing information regarding performance validity. Decision trees are provided to facilitate administration of the three trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Memory module for the Inventory of Problems (IOP-M) in a sample of real-world patients. Archival data were collected from a mixed clinical sample of 90 adults clinically referred for neuropsychological testing. The classification accuracy of the IOP-M was computed against psychometrically defined invalid performance. IOP-M ≤30 produced a good combination of sensitivity (.46-.75) and specificity (.86-.95). Lowering the cutoff to ≤29 improved specificity (.94-1.00) at the expense of sensitivity (.29-.63). The IOP-M correctly classified between 73% and 91% of the sample. Given its low cost, ease of administration/scoring in combination with robust classification accuracy, the IOP-M has the potential to expand the existing toolkit for the evaluation of performance validity during neuropsychological assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if similar levels of performance on the Overall Test Battery Mean (OTBM) occur at different forced choice test (FCT) p-value score failures. Second, to determine the OTBM levels that are associated with failures at above chance on various performance validity (PVT) tests. Method: OTBMs were computed from archival data obtained from four practices. We calculated each examinee's Estimated Premorbid Global Ability (EPGA) and OTBM. The sample size was 5,103 examinees with 282 (5.5%) of these scoring below chance at p ≤.20 on at least one FCT. Results: The OTBM associated with a failure at p ≤.20 was equivalent to the OTBM that was associated with failing 6 or more PVTs at above-chance cutoffs. The mean OTBMs relative to increasingly strict FCT p cutoffs were similar (T scores in the 30s). As expected, there was an inverse relationship between the number of PVTs failed and examinees' OTBMs. Conclusions: The data support the use of p ≤.20 as the probability level for testing the significance of below chance performance on FCTs. The OTBM can be used to index the influence of invalid performance on outcomes, especially when an examinee scores below chance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Warrington’s Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in 167 patients (97 or 58.1% men; MAge = 40.4; MEducation= 13.8) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation against five psychometrically defined criterion groups. At the optimal cutoff (≤42), the RMT produced an acceptable combination of sensitivity (.36-.60) and specificity (.85-.95), correctly classifying 68.4-83.3% of the sample. Making the cutoff more conservative (≤41) improved specificity (.88-.95) at the expense of sensitivity (.30-.60). Lowering the cutoff to ≤40 achieved uniformly high specificity (.91-.95) but diminished sensitivity (.27-.48). RMT scores were unrelated to lateral dominance, education, or gender. The RMT was sensitive to a three-way classification of performance validity (Pass/Borderline/Fail), further demonstrating its discriminant power. Despite a notable decline in research studies focused on its classification accuracy within the last decade, the RMT remains an effective free-standing PVT that is robust to demographic variables. Relatively low sensitivity is its main liability. Further research is needed on its cross-cultural validity (sensitivity to limited English proficiency). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to determine base rates of response bias in veterans and service members (SM) referred specifically for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Method Observational study of various performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) in a sample of SMs (n  = 94) and veterans (n  = 504) referred for clinical evaluation of ADHD. Results SVT and PVT failure rates were similar between the samples, but they were lower than previous Veterans Affairs (VA) and SM studies that were not exclusive to ADHD evaluations. Invalid reporting across all SVT scales on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Personality Assessment Inventory was relatively uncommon, with rates of invalid scores falling at less than 7%. In both samples, free-standing PVTs were failed at about 22%. Conclusions Although the base rates of PVT and SVT failures in ADHD-specific evaluations were lower than previously published data on non-ADHD-specific evaluations in veterans and SMs, the current study continues to support the inclusion of these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

It is common to use normative adjustments based on race to maintain accuracy when interpreting cognitive test results during neuropsychological assessment. However, embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) do not adjust for these racial differences and may result in elevated rates of false positives in African American/Black (AA) samples compared to European American/White (EA) samples. Veterans without Major Neurocognitive Disorder completed an outpatient neuropsychological assessment and were deemed to be performing in a valid manner (e.g., passing both the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 (TOMM1) and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), (n = 531, EA = 473, AA = 58). Five embedded PVTs were administered to all patients: WAIS-III/IV Processing Speed Index (PSI), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised: Discrimination Index (BVMT-R), TMT-A (secs), California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) Forced Choice, and WAIS-III/IV Digit Span Scaled Score. Individual PVT false positive rates, as well as the rate of failing two or more embedded PVTs, were calculated. Failure rates of two embedded PVTs (PSI, TMT-A), and the total number of PVTs failed, were higher in the AA sample. The PSI and TMT-A remained significantly impacted by race after accounting for age, education, sex, and presence of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. There were PVT failure rates greater than 10% (and considered false positives) in both groups (AA: PSI, TMT-A, and BVMT-R, 12–24%; EA: BVMT-R, 17%). Failing 2 or more PVTs (AA = 9%, EA = 4%) was impacted by education and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder but not by race. Individual (timed) PVTs showed higher false positive rates in the AA sample even after accounting for demographic factors and diagnosis of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. Requiring failure on 2 or more embedded PVTs reduced false positive rates to acceptable levels across both groups (10% or less) and was not significantly influenced by race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study cross-validated multiple Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B scores as non-memory-based embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) for detecting invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans with and without cognitive impairment. Data were collected from a demographically and diagnostically diverse mixed clinical sample of 100 veterans undergoing outpatient neuropsychological evaluation at a Southwestern VA Medical Center. As part of a larger battery of neuropsychological tests, all veterans completed TMT A and B and four independent criterion PVTs, which were used to classify veterans into valid (n = 75) and invalid (n = 25) groups. Among the valid group 47% (n = 35) were cognitively impaired. Among the overall sample, all embedded PVTs derived from TMT A and B raw and demographically corrected T-scores significantly differed between validity groups (ηp2 =.21–.31) with significant areas under the curve (AUCs) of.72–.78 and 32–48% sensitivity (≥91% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. When subdivided by cognitive impairment status (i.e., valid-unimpaired vs. invalid; valid-impaired vs. invalid), all TMT scores yielded significant AUCs of.80–.88 and 56%–72% sensitivity (≥90% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. Among veterans with cognitive impairment, neither TMT A or B raw scores were able to significantly differentiate the invalid from the valid-cognitively impaired group; however, demographically corrected T-scores were able to significantly differentiate groups but had poor classification accuracy (AUCs =.66–.68) and reduced sensitivity of 28%–44% (≥91% specificity). Embedded PVTs derived from TMT Parts A and B raw and T-scores were able to accurately differentiate valid from invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans without cognitive impairment; however, the demographically corrected T-scores generally were more robust and consistent with prior studies compared to raw scores. By contrast, TMT embedded PVTs had poor accuracy and low sensitivity among veterans with cognitive impairment, suggesting limited utility as PVTs among populations with cognitive dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: The clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood is known to show non-trivial base rates of noncredible performance and requires thorough validity assessment. (2) Objectives: The present study estimated base rates of noncredible performance in clinical evaluations of adult ADHD on one or more of 17 embedded validity indicators (EVIs). This study further examines the effect of the order of test administration on EVI failure rates, the association between cognitive underperformance and symptom overreporting, and the prediction of cognitive underperformance by clinical information. (3) Methods: A mixed neuropsychiatric sample (N = 464, ADHD = 227) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery on the Vienna Test System (VTS; CFADHD). Test performance allows the computation of 17 embedded performance validity indicators (PVTs) derived from eight different neuropsychological tests. Further, all participants completed several self- and other-report symptom rating scales assessing depressive symptoms and cognitive functioning. The Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory-II were administered to derive embedded symptom validity measures (SVTs). (4) Results and conclusion: Noncredible performance occurs in a sizeable proportion of about 10% up to 30% of individuals throughout the entire battery. Tests for attention and concentration appear to be the most adequate and sensitive for detecting underperformance. Cognitive underperformance represents a coherent construct and seems dissociable from symptom overreporting. These results emphasize the importance of performing multiple PVTs, at different time points, and promote more accurate calculation of the positive and negative predictive values of a given validity measure for noncredible performance during clinical assessments. Future studies should further examine whether and how the present results stand in other clinical populations, by implementing rigorous reference standards of noncredible performance, characterizing those failing PVT assessments, and differentiating between underlying motivations. [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: While assessment of performance validity is essential to neuropsychological evaluations, use of performance validity tests (PVTs) in an epilepsy population has raised concerns due to factors that may result in performance fluctuations. The current study assessed whether specificity was maintained at previously suggested cutoffs in a confirmed epilepsy population on the Warrington Recognition Memory Test (WRMT) – Words and Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Method: Eighty-two confirmed epilepsy patients were administered the WRMT-Words and TOMM as part of a standardized neuropsychological evaluation. Frequency tables were utilized to investigate specificity rates on these two PVTs. Results: The suggested WRMT-Words Accuracy Score cutoff of ≤42 was associated with a specificity rate of 90.2%. Five out of the 8 individuals falling below the Accuracy Score cutoff scored 42, suggesting specificity could be further improved by slightly lowering the cutoff. The WRMT-Words Total Time cutoff of ≥207 seconds was associated with 95.1% specificity. A TOMM Trial 1 cutoff of <40 was associated with 93.9% specificity, while the established cutoff of <45 on Trial 2 and the Retention Trial yielded specificity rates of 98.6% and 100.0%, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate acceptable performance on two PVTs in a select confirmed epilepsy population without a history of brain surgery, active seizures during testing, and/or low IQ, irrespective of various factors such as seizure type, seizure lateralization/localization, and language lateralization. The possible presence of interictal discharges were not controlled for in the current study, which may have contributed to reduced PVT performances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Determining the validity of data during clinical neuropsychological assessment is crucial for proper interpretation, and extensive literature has emphasized myriad methods of doing so in diverse samples. However, little research has considered noncredible presentation in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). PwMS often experience one or more factors known to impact validity of data, including major neurocognitive impairment, psychological distress/psychogenic interference, and secondary gain. This case series aimed to illustrate the potential relationships between these factors and performance validity testing in pwMS. Six cases from an IRB-approved database containing pwMS referred for neuropsychological assessment at a large, academic medical center involving at least one of the above-stated factors were identified. Backgrounds, neuropsychological test data, and clinical considerations for each were reviewed. Interestingly, no pwMS diagnosed with major neurocognitive impairment was found to have noncredible performance, nor was any patient with noncredible performance in the absence of notable psychological distress. Given the variability of noncredible performance and multiplicity of factors affecting performance validity in pwMS, clinicians are strongly encouraged to consider psychometrically appropriate methods for evaluating validity of cognitive data in pwMS. Additional research aiming to elucidate base rates of, mechanisms begetting, and methods for assessing noncredible performance in pwMS is imperative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suboptimal performance during neuropsychological testing frequently occurs in multiple sclerosis (MS), leading to unreliable cognitive outcomes. Neurophysiological alterations correlate with MS-related cognitive impairment, but studies have not yet considered performance validity. Objectives: To investigate neurophysiological markers of cognitive impairment in MS, while explicitly addressing performance validity. Methods: Magnetoencephalography recordings, neuropsychological assessments, and performance validity testing were obtained from 90 MS outpatients with cognitive complaints. Spectral and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) properties were compared between cognitively impaired (CI), cognitively preserved (CP), and suboptimally performing (SUB) patients using regression models and permutation testing. Results: CI had higher power in low-frequency bands and lower power in high bands compared to CP, indicating neuronal slowing. CI also showed lower beta power compared to SUB. Overall power spectra visually differed between CI and CP, and SUB showed overlap with both groups. CI had lower rsFC than CP and SUB patients. CP and SUB patients showed no differences. Conclusion: Neuronal slowing and altered rsFC can be considered cognitive markers in MS. Patients who performed suboptimally showed resemblance with patients with and without cognitive impairments, and although their overall neurophysiological profile was more similar to patients without impairments, it suggests heterogeneity regarding their pathophysiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Reliable Digit Span (RDS), RDS-Revised (RDS-R), and age-corrected scaled score (ACSS) have been previously validated as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV Digit Span subtest (WAIS-IV DS). However, few studies have directly compared the relative utility of these and other proposed WAIS-IV DS validity indicators within a single sample. Method This study compared classification accuracies of 10 WAIS-IV DS indices in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample of 227 outpatients who completed a standardized neuropsychological battery. Participants with ≤1 PVT failures of the four, freestanding criterion PVTs constituted the valid group (n  = 181), whereas those with ≥2 PVT failures formed the invalid group (n  = 46). Among the valid group, 113 met criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results Classification accuracies for all DS indicators were statistically significant across the overall sample and subsamples with and without MCI, apart from indices derived from the Forward trial in the MCI sample. DS Sequencing ACSS, working memory RDS (wmRDS), and DS ACSS emerged as the most effective predictors of validity status, with acceptable to excellent classification accuracy for the overall sample (AUCs = 0.792–0.816; 35%–50% sensitivity/88%–96% specificity). Conclusions Although most DS indices demonstrated clinical utility as embedded PVTs, DS Sequencing ACSS, wmRDS, and DS ACSS may be particularly robust to cognitive impairment, minimizing risk of false positive errors while identifying noncredible performance. Moreover, DS indices incorporating data from multiple trials (i.e. wmRDS, DS ACSS) also generally yielded greater classification accuracy than those derived from a single trial. [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]

ObjectiveThe study was designed to expand on the results of previous investigations on the D-KEFS Stroop as a performance validity test (PVT), which produced diverging conclusions. Method The classification accuracy of previously proposed validity cutoffs on the D-KEFS Stroop was computed against four different criterion PVTs in two independent samples: patients with uncomplicated mild TBI (n = 68) and disability benefit applicants (n = 49). Results Age-corrected scaled scores (ACSSs) ≤6 on individual subtests often fell short of specificity standards. Making the cutoffs more conservative improved specificity, but at a significant cost to sensitivity. In contrast, multivariate models (≥3 failures at ACSS ≤6 or ≥2 failures at ACSS ≤5 on the four subtests) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.39-.79) and specificity (.85-1.00), correctly classifying 74.6-90.6% of the sample. A novel validity scale, the D-KEFS Stroop Index correctly classified between 78.7% and 93.3% of the sample. Conclusions A multivariate approach to performance validity assessment provides a methodological safeguard against sample- and instrument-specific fluctuations in classification accuracy, strikes a reasonable balance between sensitivity and specificity, and mitigates the invalid before impaired paradox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Assessing performance validity is imperative in both clinical and research contexts as data interpretation presupposes adequate participation from examinees. Performance validity tests (PVTs) are utilized to identify instances in which results cannot be interpreted at face value. This study explored the hit rates for two frequently used PVTs in a research sample of individuals with and without histories of bipolar disorder (BD). Method: As part of an ongoing longitudinal study of individuals with BD, we examined the performance of 736 individuals with BD and 255 individuals with no history of mental health disorder on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the California Verbal Learning Test forced choice trial (CVLT-FC) at three time points. Results: Undiagnosed individuals demonstrated 100% pass rate on PVTs and individuals with BD passed over 98% of the time. A mixed effects model adjusting for relevant demographic variables revealed no significant difference in TOMM scores between the groups, a =.07, SE =.07, p =.31. On the CVLT-FC, no clinically significant differences were observed (ps <.001). Conclusions: Perfect PVT scores were obtained by the majority of individuals, with no differences in failure rates between groups. The tests have approximately >98% specificity in BD and 100% specificity among non-diagnosed individuals. Further, nearly 90% of individuals with BD obtained perfect scores on both measures, a trend observed at each time point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), emotion- and motivation related symptoms may affect effort during neuropsychological testing. Performance Validity Tests (PVT's) are therefore essential, but are rarely mentioned in research on cognitive functioning in MDD. We aimed to assess the proportion of MDD patients with demonstrated valid performance and determine cognitive functioning in patients with valid performance. This is the first systematic review on neuropsychological performance validity in MDD. Databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on PVT results of adult MDD patients. We meta-analyzed the proportion of MDD patients with PVT scores indicative of valid performance. Seven studies with a total of 409 MDD patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Six studies reported the exact proportion of patients with PVT scores indicative of valid performance, which ranged from 60 to 100 % with a proportion estimate of 94 %. Four studies reported on cognitive functioning in MDD patients with valid performance. Two out of these studies found memory impairment in a minority of MDD patients and two out of these studies found no cognitive impairment. Small number of studies and small sample sizes. A surprisingly small number of studies reported on PVT in MDD. About 94 % of MDD patients in studies using PVT's had valid neuropsychological test performance. Concessive information regarding cognitive functioning in MDD patients with valid performance was lacking. Neuropsychological performance validity should be taken into account since this may alter conclusions regarding cognitive functioning. • This is the first review on performance validity in major depressive disorder. • 94 % of patients had performance validity test scores indicative of valid performance. • Taking validity into account can alter conclusions regarding cognitive impairment. • Evidence on cognitive functioning in patients with valid performance was mixed. • Performance validity should be taken into account in major depressive disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Finger Tapping Test (FTT) is a widely utilized measure to assess lateralized motor speed and dexterity. The current study sought to cross-validate an abbreviated version of the FTT (i.e., M of Trials 3–5) and to evaluate a novel abbreviated method (i.e., M of three trials within five taps of each other; "3 within 5") to examine their respective effectiveness as a predictor of full-score performance based on a traditional administration procedure. The results showed that the abbreviated methods accurately predicted the full-test score, and any statistically significant differences that emerged were small based on effect size analysis and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. These findings were consistent across genders, among older adults, and among individuals displaying significant inter-trial tapping variability and thus requiring lengthier administration time. Classification accuracy statistics for the detection of impairment and performance validity status were high for both abbreviated methods. The results support two valid options for shortening the duration of the FTT. Both methods, used independently or in combination, are compatible with traditional administration procedures. [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]

To determine if the number of participants with psychiatric disorders increased in association with failures on symptom validity tests (SVTs) and a performance validity test (PVT) in Veterans admitted for evaluation of possible seizures. The 254 participants were Veterans undergoing inpatient video-EEG monitoring for the diagnosis of possible seizures. DSM-IV psychiatric disorders were diagnosed with the SCID IV. Symptom exaggeration was assessed with the MMPI-2-RF and performance validity with the TOMM. On the MMPI-2-RF, 27.6%–32.7% showed symptom exaggeration. Participants who exaggerated on the MMPI-2-RF were more often diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. The TOMM was failed by 15.4% of the sample. Participants who failed the TOMM were more often diagnosed with an Axis I disorder but not with a personality disorder. The MMPI-2-RF was invalid in more cases than the TOMM, but 7.9% of the sample generated a valid MMPI-2-RF and an invalid TOMM. The correlational design does not allow conclusions about cause and effect. The invalid groups may have had a higher rate of psychopathology. The number of participants with psychiatric disorders increased in association with symptom exaggeration and performance invalidity. Symptom exaggeration was more frequent than performance invalidity, but the TOMM made a unique contribution to identification of invalidity. The routine clinical use of SVTs and PVTs is supported. The results also suggest the need for caution in diagnosing psychiatric disorders when there is symptom exaggeration or performance invalidity, because diagnostic validity is dependent on the accuracy of symptom reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using embedded performance validity (PVT) comparisons, Erdodi et al. suggested that Grooved Pegboard (GPB) T-score cutoffs for either hand ( ≤ 29) or both hands ( ≤ 31) could be used as additional embedded PVTs. The current study evaluated the relationship between these proposed cutoff scores and established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT]; Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]). Participants (N = 178) were predominately Caucasian (84%) males (79%) with a mean age and education of 41 (SD = 11.7) and 15.8 years (SD = 2.3), respectively. Participants were stratified as "passing" or "failing" the GPBviaErdodi's proposed criteria. "Failures" on the MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were based on conventional recommendations. Moderate correlations between GPB classification and a condition of interest (COI; i.e. at least two failures on reference PVTs) were observed for dominant (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 34.72, ϕ =.44, p <.001), non-dominant (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 16.46, ϕ =.30, p =.001), and both hand conditions (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 32.48, ϕ =.43, p <.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power were generally higher than Erdodi et al.'s initial findings. These findingsprovide supportfor the clinical utility of the GPB as an additional embedded PVT. More specifically, dominant and both hand cutoffs were found to be more robust measures ofnon-genuine performance in those without motor deficits. While promising, sensitivity continues to be low; therefore, it is ill-advised to use the GPB as a sole measure of -performance validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cross-validate RAVLT performance validity cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function in a large neuropsychological sample. RAVLT scores and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function were compared in credible (n = 100) and noncredible (n = 353) neuropsychology referrals. Noncredible patients scored lower than credible patients on RAVLT scores and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function. With cut-offs set to ≥90% specificity, highest sensitivities were observed for the discriminant function (cut-off ≤.064; 55.8%), recognition total (cut-off ≤9; 53.1%), the recognition combination score (≤10; 47.7%), and total learning across trials (cut-off ≤31; 45.3%). Individuals with histories of learning difficulties were over-represented in the 10% of credible patients exceeding cut-offs. When these individuals were removed, cut-offs could be tightened while still maintaining at least 90% specificity, and thereby increasing sensitivity (e.g., recognition total cut-off ≤10, 65% sensitivity; RAVLT/RO discriminant function cut-off ≤.176, 58% sensitivity). When three of the most sensitive, non-overlapping scores were considered in combination, 17% of credible patients failed ≥1 of the three cut-offs, while 3% failed two, and only 1% failed all three. In contrast, in the noncredible sample, more than two-thirds failed one or more of the three cut-offs, nearly half failed ≥2, and nearly a quarter failed all three. RAVLT PVT cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function achieve approximately 50% sensitivity, and approach 65% sensitivity when cut-offs specific to samples without histories of learning problems are employed, confirming that RAVLT cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function continue to be valuable techniques in the identification of performance invalidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was designed to determine the clinical utility of embedded performance validity indicators (EVIs) in adults with intellectual disability (ID) during neuropsychological assessment. Based on previous research, unacceptably high (>16%) base rates of failure (BRFail) were predicted on EVIs using on the method of threshold, but not on EVIs based on alternative detection methods. A comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests was administered to 23 adults with ID (MAge = 37.7 years, MFSIQ = 64.9). BRFail were computed at two levels of cut-offs for 32 EVIs. Patients produced very high BRFail on 22 EVIs (18.2%-100%), indicating unacceptable levels of false positive errors. However, on the remaining ten EVIs BRFail was <16%. Moreover, six of the EVIs had a zero BRFail, indicating perfect specificity. Consistent with previous research, individuals with ID failed the majority of EVIs at high BRFail. However, they produced BRFail similar to cognitively higher functioning patients on select EVIs based on recognition memory and unusual patterns of performance, suggesting that the high BRFail reported in the literature may reflect instrumentation artefacts. The implications of these findings for clinical and forensic assessment are discussed. [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: This cross-sectional study examined the effect of number of Performance Validity Test (PVT) failures on neuropsychological test performance among a demographically diverse Veteran (VA) sample (n = 76) and academic medical sample (AMC; n = 128). A secondary goal was to investigate the psychometric implications of including versus excluding those with one PVT failure when cross-validating a series of embedded PVTs. Method: All patients completed the same six criterion PVTs, with the AMC sample completing three additional embedded PVTs. Neurocognitive test performance differences were examined based on number of PVT failures (0, 1, 2+) for both samples, and effect of number of criterion failures on embedded PVT performance was analyzed among the AMC sample. Results: Both groups with 0 or 1 PVT failures performed better than those with ≥2 PVT failures across most cognitive tests. There were nonsignificant differences between those with 0 or 1 PVT failures except for one test in the AMC sample. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses found no differences in optimal cut score based on number of PVT failures when retaining/excluding one PVT failure. Conclusion: Findings support the use of ≥2 PVT failures as indicative of performance invalidity. These findings strongly support including those with one PVT failure with those with zero PVT failures in diagnostic accuracy studies, given that their inclusion reflects actual clinical practice, does not reduce sample sizes, and does not artificially deflate neurocognitive test results or inflate PVT classification accuracy statistics. [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]

Although there is an abundance of research on stand-alone and embedded performance validity tests and stand-alone symptom validity tests (SVTs), less emphasis has been placed on embedded SVTs. The goal of the current study was to examine the ability of embedded indicators within the Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS) to separately detect invalid cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom responding. Participants included 299 veterans assessed in a VA medical center epilepsy monitoring unit from 2013–2017 (mean age = 48.8 years, SD = 13.5 years). Two SVT composites were created; self-reported cognitive symptom validity (SVT-C) and self-reported emotional/affective symptom validity (SVT-E). Groups were compared on PCRS total and index scores (i.e., cognitive, activities of daily living, emotional, and interpersonal competencies) using ANOVAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed the classification accuracy of the PCRS total and index scores for SVT-C and SVT-E. In ANOVAs, SVT-C was significantly associated with all PCRS indices, while SVT-E was only significantly associated with the PCRS total, emotional, and interpersonal competency indices. Although the PCRS-T ≤ 90 had the strongest classification of SVT-C and SVT-E (specificities:.90, sensitivities:.44 to.50), PCRS index scores showed suggestive evidence of domain specificity, with PCRS-ADL ≤22, PCRS-C ≤ 20, and PCRS-CADL ≤45 best classifying SVT-C (specificities:.92, sensitivities:.33) and the PCRS-E ≤ 18 best classifying the SVT-E group (specificity:.93, sensitivity:.40). Results suggest the PCRS may be used to obtain clinically useful information while including embedded indicators that can assess cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom invalidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated a combination of eight embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) derived from commonly administered neuropsychological tests to optimize sensitivity/specificity for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate what combination of these common embedded PVTs that have the most robust predictive power for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance in a single diverse clinical sample. Eight previously validated memory- and nonmemory-based embedded PVTs were examined among 231 patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. Patients were classified into valid/invalid groups based on four independent criterion PVTs. Embedded PVT accuracy was assessed using standard and stepwise multiple logistic regression models. Three PVTs, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised Recognition Discrimination (BVMT-R-RD), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Forced Choice, and WAIS-IV Digit Span Age Corrected Scaled Score, predicted 45.5% of the variance in validity group membership. BVMT-RD independently accounted for 32% of the variance in prediction of independent, criterion-defined validity group membership. This study demonstrated the incremental predictive power of multiple embedded PVTs derived from common neuropsychological measures in detecting invalid test performance and those measures accounting for the greatest portion of the variance. These results provide guidance for evaluating the most fruitful embedded PVTs and proof of concept to better guide selection of embedded validity indices. Further, this offers clinicians an efficient, empirically derived approach to assessing performance validity when time restraints potentially limit the use of freestanding PVTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is limited research examining the impact of the validity of cognitive test performance on treatment outcome. All known studies to date have operationalized performance validity dichotomously, leading to the loss of predictive information. Using the range of scores on a performance validity test (PVT), we hypothesized that lower performance at baseline was related to a worse treatment outcome following cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and to lower adherence to treatment. Method: Archival data of 1081 outpatients treated with CBT for CFS were used in this study. At baseline, all patients were assessed with a PVT, the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory test (ASTM). Questionnaires assessing fatigue, physical disabilities, psychological distress, and level of functional impairment were administered before and after CBT. Results: Our main hypothesis was not confirmed: the total ASTM score was not significantly associated with outcomes at follow-up. However, patients with a missing follow-up assessment had a lower ASTM performance at baseline, reported higher levels of physical limitations, and completed fewer therapy sessions. Conclusions: CFS patients who scored low on the ASTM during baseline assessment are more likely to complete fewer therapy sessions and not to complete follow-up assessment, indicative of limited adherence to treatment. However, if these patients were retained in the intervention, their response to CBT for CFS was comparable with subjects who score high on the ASTM. This finding calls for more research to better understand the impact of performance validity on engagement with treatment and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suboptimal performance during neuropsychological assessment renders cognitive test results invalid. However, suboptimal performance has rarely been investigated in multiple sclerosis (MS). Objectives: To investigate potential underlying mechanisms of suboptimal performance in MS. Methods: Performance validity testing, neuropsychological assessments, neuroimaging, and questionnaires were analyzed in 99 MS outpatients with cognitive complaints. Based on performance validity testing patients were classified as valid or invalid performers, and based on neuropsychological test results as cognitively impaired or preserved. Group comparisons and correlational analyses were performed on demographics, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes. Results: Twenty percent displayed invalid performance. Invalid and valid performers did not differ regarding demographic, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes. Disease severity of invalid and valid performers with cognitive impairment was comparable, but worse than cognitively preserved valid performers. Lower performance validity scores related to lower cognitive functioning, lower education, being male, and higher disability levels (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Suboptimal performance frequently occurs in patients with MS and cognitive complaints. In both clinical practice and in cognitive research, suboptimal performance should be considered in the interpretation of cognitive outcomes. Identification of factors that differentiate between suboptimal and optimal performers with cognitive impairment needs further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Forced Choice Recognition (FC) and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Recognition Discrimination Index (RD) are embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) assessing material-specific neuropsychological processes (i.e., verbal and visual memory, respectively). Prior research demonstrated the utility of these PVTs independently; however, no study has compared their diagnostic accuracy for identifying invalid performance relative to each other and in combination within a single sample. This cross-sectional study included an adult neuropsychiatric sample who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Validity groups were determined via independent criterion PVT performance, and consisted of 103 participants with valid and 25 with invalid neurocognitive performance. FC and RD were not significantly correlated (r =.154), yet both differed between validity groups (ηp2 =.14–.19). Previously established FC (≤14) and RD (≤4) cutoffs evidenced 32–40% sensitivity/90–98% specificity, though receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses indicated a more liberal FC cutoff (≤15) was optimal. Logistic regression models utilizing both embedded PVTs indicated that FC did not significantly improve classification accuracy above and beyond RD. Results support the clinical utility of existing cutoffs for FC and RD for independently identifying invalid performance, though the latter showed relatively better ability to detect invalid performance when both are used together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Research regarding performance validity tests (PVTs) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is scant, with recommended batteries for neuropsychological evaluations in this population lacking suggestions to include PVTs. Moreover, limited work has examined embedded PVTs in this population. As previous investigations indicated that nonmemory-based embedded PVTs provide clinical utility in other populations, this study sought to determine if a logistic regression-derived PVT formula can be identified from selected nonmemory variables in a sample of patients with MS. Method A total of 184 patients (M age = 48.45; 76.6% female) with MS were referred for neuropsychological assessment at a large, Midwestern academic medical center. Patients were placed into "credible" (n  = 146) or "noncredible" (n  = 38) groups according to performance on standalone PVT. Missing data were imputed with HOTDECK. Results Classification statistics for a variety of embedded PVTs were examined, with none appearing psychometrically appropriate in isolation (areas under the curve [AUCs] = .48–.64). Four exponentiated equations were created via logistic regression. Six, five, and three predictor equations yielded acceptable discriminability (AUC = .71–.74) with modest sensitivity (.34–.39) while maintaining good specificity (≥.90). The two predictor equation appeared unacceptable (AUC = .67). Conclusions Results suggest that multivariate combinations of embedded PVTs may provide some clinical utility while minimizing test burden in determining performance validity in patients with MS. Nonetheless, the authors recommend routine inclusion of several PVTs and utilization of comprehensive clinical judgment to maximize signal detection of noncredible performance and avoid incorrect conclusions. Clinical implications, limitations, and avenues for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective In concussion populations, suboptimal task engagement detected by performance validity tests (PVTs) has been associated with poorer neuropsychological scores and greater post-concussive symptoms (PCS). This study examined if Pass/Fail status on the Test of Memory Malingering—TOMM Trial 1—differentiated the neurocognitive, emotional, and behavioral profile of pediatric patients with concussion. Method This study utilized archival data from 93 patients (mean age  = 14.56 and SD  = 2.01) with a history of concussion who were assessed at ~5–6 weeks post-injury (mean days  = 40.27 and SD  = 35.41). Individuals were divided into "Pass" and "Fail" groups based on TOMM Trial 1 performance. The testing battery included ACT, CPT-II and III, HVLT-R, WJ-III and IV ACH, ImPACT, BASC-2, and BRIEF. Results The overall pass rate on Trial 1 was 70% (mean  = 46.04 and SD  = 4.55). Findings suggested that a passing score on Trial 1 may be associated with adequate performance across the remaining two trials of the TOMM. The Fail group scored significantly lower across attention, memory, and processing speed measures when compared with the Pass group. On rating scales, significantly more concerns were endorsed with the Fail group for attention and executive functioning relative to the Pass group. Parents generally endorsed significantly more concerns for executive functioning when compared with their children's self-reported symptoms. There was a trend for the Fail group to report more PCS; however, they did not significantly differ from the Pass group for depression, anxiety, or somatization. Conclusions This study highlights the importance of utilizing PVTs when evaluating concussion recovery. [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]