Search

Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of Rey 15-item plus recognition data in a large neuropsychological sample., Method: Rey 15-item plus recognition scores were compared in credible (n = 138) and noncredible (n = 353) neuropsychology referrals., Results: Noncredible patients scored significantly worse than credible patients on all Rey 15-item plus recognition scores. When cut-offs were selected to maintain at least 89.9% specificity, cut-offs could be made more stringent, with the highest sensitivity found for recognition correct (cut-off ≤11; 62.6% sensitivity) and the combination score (recall + recognition - false positives; cut-off ≤22; 60.6% sensitivity), followed by recall correct (cut-off ≤11; 49.3% sensitivity), and recognition false positive errors (≥3; 17.9% sensitivity). A cut-off of ≥4 applied to a summed qualitative error score for the recall trial resulted in 19.4% sensitivity. Approximately 10% of credible subjects failed either recall correct or recognition correct, whereas two-thirds of noncredible patients (67.7%) showed this pattern. Thirteen percent of credible patients failed either recall correct, recognition correct, or the recall qualitative error score, whereas nearly 70% of noncredible patients failed at least one of the three. Some individual qualitative recognition errors had low false positive rates (<2%) indicating that their presence was virtually pathognomonic for noncredible performance. Older age (>50) and IQ < 80 were associated with increased false positive rates in credible patients., Conclusions: Data on a larger sample than that available in the 2002 validation study show that Rey 15-item plus recognition cut-offs can be made more stringent, and thereby detect up to 70% of noncredible test takers, but the test should be used cautiously in older individuals and in individuals with lowered IQ., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To cross-validate the Dot Counting Test in a large neuropsychological sample., Method: Dot Counting Test scores were compared in credible (n = 142) and non-credible (n = 335) neuropsychology referrals., Results: Non-credible patients scored significantly higher than credible patients on all Dot Counting Test scores. While the original E-score cut-off of ≥17 achieved excellent specificity (96.5%), it was associated with mediocre sensitivity (52.8%). However, the cut-off could be substantially lowered to ≥13.80, while still maintaining adequate specificity (≥90%), and raising sensitivity to 70.0%. Examination of non-credible subgroups revealed that Dot Counting Test sensitivity in feigned mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) was 55.8%, whereas sensitivity was 90.6% in patients with non-credible cognitive dysfunction in the context of claimed psychosis, and 81.0% in patients with non-credible cognitive performance in depression or severe TBI. Thus, the Dot Counting Test may have a particular role in detection of non-credible cognitive symptoms in claimed psychiatric disorders. Alternative to use of the E-score, failure on ≥1 cut-offs applied to individual Dot Counting Test scores (≥6.0″ for mean grouped dot counting time, ≥10.0″ for mean ungrouped dot counting time, and ≥4 errors), occurred in 11.3% of the credible sample, while nearly two-thirds (63.6%) of the non-credible sample failed one of more of these cut-offs., Conclusions: An E-score cut-off of 13.80, or failure on ≥1 individual score cut-offs, resulted in few false positive identifications in credible patients, and achieved high sensitivity (64.0-70.0%), and therefore appear appropriate for use in identifying neurocognitive performance invalidity.

Objective: The current study evaluated MSPQ sensitivity to noncredible PVT performance in the context of external incentive, and examined MSPQ false positive rates in noncompensation-seeking neuropsychology patients; and investigated effects of ethnicity/culture, gender, and somatoform diagnosis on MSPQ scores, and relationships with PVT and MMPI-2-RF data., Method: MSPQ scores were compared in credible (n = 110) and noncredible (n = 153) neuropsychology referrals., Results: Noncredible patients scored higher than credible patients. When the credible group was divided into those with somatoform orientation (n = 39) versus those without (n = 71), the credible nonsomatoform group scored lower than the other two groups, who did not differ from each other. MSPQ elevations were found in ethnic minorities, and in individuals who learned English as a second language or concurrently with another language. MSPQ elevations were also associated with chronic systemic diseases, neurologic illness, and substance abuse. Women scored higher than men, but men and women were equally represented among those patients scoring beyond cut-offs. MSPQ scores were minimally related to PVT data but were more strongly correlated with MMPI-2-RF scales, particularly over-report validity scales, RC1, and Somatic/Cognitive scales, with more widespread relationships observed in noncredible patients., Conclusions: A cut-off of 18 resulted in few false positives in credible nonsomatoform patients, and appears appropriate for identifying physical symptom over-report (due to malingering or somatoform orientations), with associated sensitivity of 29%. However, clinicians are cautioned regarding using the MSPQ in patients with systemic, neurologic, and substance abuse conditions, and in ethnic minorities and non-monolingual English-speakers.

The current study provides specificity data on a large sample (n = 115) of young to middle-aged, male, monolingual Spanish speakers of lower educational level and low acculturation to mainstream US culture for four neurocognitive performance validity tests (PVTs): the Dot Counting, the b Test, Rey Word Recognition, and Rey 15-Item Plus Recognition. Individuals with 0 to 6 years of education performed more poorly than did participants with 7 to 10 years of education on several Rey 15-Item scores (combination equation, recall intrusion errors, and recognition false positives), Rey Word Recognition total correct, and E-score and omission errors on the b Test, but no effect of educational level was observed for Dot Counting Test scores. Cutoff scores are provided that maintain approximately 90% specificity for the education subgroups separately. Some of these cutoffs match, or are even more stringent than, those recommended for use in US test takers who are primarily Caucasian, are tested in English, and have a higher educational level (i.e., Rey Word Recognition correct false-positive errors; Rey 15-Item recall intrusions and recognition false-positive errors; b Test total time; and Dot Counting E-score and grouped dot counting time). Thus, performance on these PVT variables in particular appears relatively robust to cultural/language/educational factors.

Neuropsychologists use performance validity tests (PVTs; Larrabee, 2012 ) to ensure that results of testing are reflective of the test taker's true neurocognitive ability, and their use is recommended in all compensation-seeking settings. However, whether the type of compensation context (e.g., personal injury litigation versus disability seeking) impacts the nature and extent of neurocognitive symptom feigning has not been adequately investigated. PVT performance was compared in an archival data set of noncredible individuals in either a personal injury litigation (n = 163) or a disability-seeking context (n = 201). Individuals were deemed noncredible based on meeting Slick, Sherman, and Iverson's ( 1999 ) criteria including failure on at least two PVTs and a lack of congruency between their low cognitive scores and normal function in activities of daily living (ADLs). In general, disability seekers tended to perform in a less sophisticated manner than did litigants (i.e., they failed more indicators and did so more extensively). Upon further investigation, these differences were in part accounted for by type of diagnoses feigned; those seeking compensation for mental health diagnoses were more likely to feign or exaggerate a wide variety of cognitive deficits, whereas those with claimed medical diagnoses (i.e., traumatic brain injury) were more targeted in their attempts to feign and/or exaggerate neurocognitive compromise.

The purpose of this archival study was to identify performance validity tests (PVTs) and standard IQ and neurocognitive test scores, which singly or in combination, differentiate credible patients of low IQ (FSIQ ≤ 75; n = 55) from non-credible patients. We compared the credible participants against a sample of 74 non-credible patients who appeared to have been attempting to feign low intelligence specifically (FSIQ ≤ 75), as well as a larger non-credible sample (n = 383) unselected for IQ. The entire non-credible group scored significantly higher than the credible participants on measures of verbal crystallized intelligence/semantic memory and manipulation of overlearned information, while the credible group performed significantly better on many processing speed and memory tests. Additionally, credible women showed faster finger-tapping speeds than non-credible women. The credible group also scored significantly higher than the non-credible subgroup with low IQ scores on measures of attention, visual perceptual/spatial tasks, processing speed, verbal learning/list learning, and visual memory, and credible women continued to outperform non-credible women on finger tapping. When cut-offs were selected to maintain approximately 90% specificity in the credible group, sensitivity rates were highest for verbal and visual memory measures (i.e., TOMM trials 1 and 2; Warrington Words correct and time; Rey Word Recognition Test total; RAVLT Effort Equation, Trial 5, total across learning trials, short delay, recognition, and RAVLT/RO discriminant function; and Digit Symbol recognition), followed by select attentional PVT scores (i.e., b Test omissions and time to recite four digits forward). When failure rates were tabulated across seven most sensitive scores, a cut-off of ≥ 2 failures was associated with 85.4% specificity and 85.7% sensitivity, while a cut-off of ≥ 3 failures resulted in 95.1% specificity and 66.0% sensitivity. Results are discussed in light of extant literature and directions for future research.

A Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT) equation incorporating copy and recognition was found to be useful in detecting negative response bias in neuropsychological assessments (ROCFT Effort Equation; Lu, P. H., Boone, K. B., Cozolino, L., & Mitchell, C. (2003). Effectiveness of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and the Meyers and Meyers recognition trial in the detection of suspect effort. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 426-440). In the current cross validation of this validity, the credible patient group (n = 146; 124 with equation data) outperformed the noncredible group (n = 157; 115 with equation data) on copy, 3-min recall, total recognition correct and the Effort Equation, but the latter was most effective in classifying subjects. A cut-off of ≤50 maintained specificity of 90% and achieved sensitivity of 80%. Results of the current cross validation provide corroboration that the ROCFT Effort Equation is an effective measure of neurocognitive response bias.

The Rey Word Recognition Test, a brief and simple to administer free-standing neurocognitive performance validity test, was examined in a large known-groups sample (122 credible patients and 134 non-credible patients). Total correctly recognized was the most sensitive score, identifying 54% of non-credible participants using a cut-off of ≤6, while maintaining specificity of approximately 90%. However, specifically rates were somewhat lower in credible individuals with <12 years of education or borderline intelligence, or who were bilingual (spoke English as a second language, or learned English concurrently with another language), indicating that cut-offs may require minor adjustment in these groups. Sensitivity rates were much higher in non-credible female versus male mild traumatic brain injury patients (mTBI; 68% versus 48% for total correct), suggesting that the Rey Word Recognition Test is particularly effective in identifying performance invalidity in female mTBI compensation seekers.

Members of the National Academy of Neuropsychology were surveyed in 2005 to assess then current practices regarding Boston Naming Test (BNT) administration, interpretation, and reporting procedures. Nearly half of 445 respondents followed discontinuation rules that differed from instructions published with the test, and nearly 10% did not administer items in reverse order to achieve the required 8 consecutive item basal. Of further concern, between 40% and 55% of respondents indicated that they did not interpret BNT scores in light of linguistic and ethnic background, and over 25% reported that they did not consider educational level. Despite the fact that non-normal distribution of BNT test scores renders use of percentiles misleading, nearly 60% of respondents endorsed using percentiles when reporting BNT data. The implications of these results are discussed, and recommendations are provided.

The b Test (Boone, Lu, & Herzberg, 2002a) is a measure of cognitive performance validity originally validated on 91 non-credible participants and 7 credible clinical comparison groups (total n = 161). The purpose of the current study was to provide cross-validation data for the b Test on a known groups sample of non-credible participants (n = 212) and credible heterogeneous neuropsychological clinic patients (n = 103). The new data showed that while the original E-score cut-off of ≥ 155 achieved excellent specificity (99%), it was associated with relatively poor sensitivity (41%). However, the cut-off could be substantially lowered to ≥82, while still maintaining adequate specificity (≥90%) and raising sensitivity to 68%. Examination of non-credible subgroups revealed that b Test sensitivity in feigned mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) was 58%, whereas in non-credible patients claiming depression and psychosis, cut-off sensitivity was 76% and 67%, respectively. These data suggest that the b Test may have a particular role in detection of non-credible cognitive symptoms associated with feigned psychiatric symptoms, and that fabricated deficits in processing speed and vigilance/visual scanning, detected by the b Test, are more prominent in feigned psychiatric presentations than in feigned mTBI. Further, b Test failures in patients with somatoform disorders were common, indicating that the b Test may have a specific use in detection of non-consciously created cognitive dysfunction associated with somatoform conditions.

The assessment of response validity during neuropsychological evaluation is an integral part of the testing process. Research has increasingly focused on the use of "embedded" effort measures (derived from standard neuropsychological tasks) because they do not require additional administration time and are less likely to be identified as effort indicators by test takers because of their primary focus as measures of cognitive function. The current study examined the clinical utility of various WMS-III Logical Memory scores in detecting response bias, as well as the Rarely Missed Index, an embedded effort indicator derived from the WMS-III Logical Memory Delayed Recognition subtest. The Rarely Missed Index cut-off only identified 24.1% of 63 non-credible participants (at >/=90% specificity in 125 credible patients), and cut-offs for other Logical Memory variables were in fact found to be more sensitive to non-credible performance. A new indicator, consisting of the weighted combination of the two most sensitive Logical Memory subtest scores (Logical Memory II raw score and Logical Memory Delayed Recognition raw score), was associated with 53% to 60% sensitivity, and thus may be an effective adjunct when utilized in conjunction with other validated effort indicators and collateral information in identifying non-credible performance.

A subset of patients who present for neuropsychological testing report dysfunction in daily life activities secondary to cognitive deficits, but are found on formal testing to have no objective abnormalities, raising the possibility of "neurocognitive hypochondriasis." Such a case is presented, and the factors that appear to give rise to this presentation are explored. Cases of hypochondriacal overconcern regarding cognitive function are likely not rare, particularly given research showing there is little correlation between objective report of cognitive dysfunction and actual test scores in such conditions as mild traumatic brain injury, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, toxic mold exposure, and post-polio syndrome.

While most neuropsychologists are now administering measures of response bias in neuropsychological evaluations, it is still likely that detection of non-credible test performance is inadequate due to faulty assumptions regarding poor effort, namely that it remains constant across a battery of tests. Four cases are described that illustrate the variability in negative response bias that occurs during neuropsychological evaluations; if effort had not been periodically sampled with heterogeneous types of effort indicators during these examinations, the suspect performance would not have been detected. These examples argue for both continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort, specifically that negative response bias be routinely monitored throughout neuropsychological evaluations, and that effort indicators involving differing cognitive abilities be employed to assess for feigning of selective deficits.

While it is recommended that judgments regarding the credibility of test performance be based on the results of more than one effort indicator, and recent efforts have been made to improve interpretation of multiple effort test failure, the field currently lacks adequate guidelines for using multiple measures of effort in concert with one another. A total of 103 patients were referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation, which included multiple measures of negative response bias embedded in standard test batteries. Using any pairwise failure combination to predict diagnostic classification was superior (sensitivity = 83.8%, specificity = 93.9%, overall hit rate = 90.3%) to using any one test by itself and to using any three-test failure combination. Further, the results were comparable to the results of logistical regression analyses using the embedded indicators as continuous predictors. Given its parsimony and clinical utility, the pairwise failure model is therefore a recommended criterion for identifying non-credible performance; however, there are of course other important contextual factors and influences to consider, which are also discussed.

Research on the performance of patients with dementia on tests of effort is particularly limited. We examined archival data from 214 non-litigating patients with dementia on 18 effort indices derived from 12 tests (WAIS-III/WAIS-R Digit Span and Vocabulary, Dot Counting Test, Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words, WMS-III Logical Memory, Rey Word Recognition Memory Test, Finger Tapping, b-Test, Rey 15-Item, Test of Memory Malingering, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and Rey Complex Figure Test). Results indicated that recommended cut-offs for Digit Span indicators (Vocabulary Minus Digit Span and four-digit forward span time score) provided > or =90% specificity across participants, while the majority of other effort tests displayed specificities in the 30-70% range. Analyses of test specificity as a function of Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score and specific dementia diagnosis are provided, as well as adjustments to cut-offs to maintain specificity where feasible.

The relationship between ethnicity and cognitive test performance was examined in a sample of 161 patients referred for evaluation at a public hospital-affiliated neuropsychology clinic; 83 patients were Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 31 were African-American, 30 were Hispanic, and 17 were Asian. Significant group differences were present on some measures of language (Boston Naming Test), attention (Digit Span ACSS), constructional ability (Rey-Osterrieth [RO] copy), nonverbal processing speed (Trails A), and executive skills (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test [WCST]). Comparison of those who spoke English as a first language (or who learned English concurrently with a second language) versus those who spoke English as a second language (ESL) revealed significantly higher performance in the non-ESL group for Digit Span, Boston Naming Test, and FAS, and a higher score in the ESL group for RO copy. Boston Naming Test scores were significantly related to years educated in the United States; Boston Naming Test and Digit Span scores were significantly correlated with age at which conversational English was first learned and number of years in the United States; and finally, FAS scores were also significantly related to number of years in the United States. These findings are consistent with data from published literature on ethnic differences and the effects of acculturation on cognitive test performance in nonpatients, and also indicate that these observations are not attenuated by the presence of psychiatric or neurologic illness. The results further caution that normative data derived on Caucasian samples may not be appropriate for use with other ethnic groups.

The Rey Word Recognition Test potentially represents an underutilized tool for clinicians to use in the detection of suspect effort. The present study examined the predictive accuracy of the test by examining the performance of three groups of participants: (a) 92 noncredible patients (as determined by failed psychometric and behavioral criteria and external motive to feign), (b) 51 general clinical patients with no motive to feign, and (c) 31 learning disabled college students. Results demonstrated gender differences in performance that necessitated separate cutoff scores for men and women. Use of a cutoff score of < or = 7 words correctly recognized identified 80.5% of noncredible female patients while maintaining specificity of > 90%. However, to achieve this level of specificity in male noncredible patients, the cutoff score had to be lowered to < or = 5, with resultant sensitivity of only 62.7%. A combination variable (recognition correct minus false positive errors + number of words recognized from the first 8 words) showed enhanced sensitivity in identifying suspect effort in a subset of the noncredible sample who were claiming cognitive symptoms secondary to traumatic brain injury (i.e., cutoff score of < or = 9 = 81.6% sensitivity with 90% specificity). Results indicate that the Rey Word Recognition Test is an accurate and cost-effective method for the detection of noncredible cognitive performance.

Ecological validity studies that have examined the relationship between cognitive abilities and employment in psychiatric and medical populations have found that a wide range of cognitive domains predict employability, although memory and executive skills appear to be the most important. However, no information is available regarding a patient's self-perceived work attributes and objective neuropsychological performance, and whether the same cognitive domains associated with successful employment are also related to a patient's self-perception of work competence. In the present study, 73 medical and psychiatric patients underwent comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. Step-wise multiple regression analyses revealed that the visual-spatial domain was the only significant predictor of self-perceived work attributes and work competence as measured by the Working Inventory (WI) and the Work Adjustment Inventory (WAI), accounting for 7% to 10% of inventory score variability. The results raise the intriguing possibility that targeting of visual spatial skills for remediation and development might play a separate and unique role in the vocational rehabilitation of a lower SES population, specifically, by leading to enhanced self-perception of work competence as these individuals attempt to enter the job market.

Sixty-one noncredible patients (as documented by psychometric and behavioral criteria) scored significantly below 25 controls and 88 credible clinic patients with no motive to feign on most RAVLT scores, including added indices of implicit and "automatic" memory. A combination of true recognition (i.e., recognition minus false positives) + implicit memory score (i.e., the number of word stems completed with RAVLT items) + "automatic" memory score (i.e., the number of correct temporal order judgments) < or =22 was associated with 75.7% sensitivity with specificity at 91.5%. However, sensitivity was nearly as high when scores available from the standard RAVLT administration alone (i.e., no word stem or temporal order trials) were combined. Specifically, a cut-off of < or =12 for true recognition (recognition minus false positives) + primacy recognition (i.e., number of words recognized from the first third of the test) was associated with 73.8% sensitivity at 90% specificity. These results indicate that combined indices of recognition memory from the RAVLT are effective in identifying noncredible memory performance in "real world" samples and are modestly superior to the 67.2% sensitivity obtained with the standard recognition score.

Past studies indicate that patients with incentive to fake neuropsychological symptoms are likely to have lower finger tapping scores than credible patients. The present study builds upon past research by investigating finger tapping performance for seven groups: (a) noncredible patients (as determined by failed psychometric and behavioral criteria), and patients with (b) closed head injury, (c) dementia, (d) mental retardation, (e) psychosis, or (f) depression, and (g) healthy older controls. Results showed that men tapped faster than women, requiring that groups be divided by gender. Noncredible male and female patients tapped slower than their comparison group counterparts. Dominant hand score proved to be more sensitive to noncredible performance than other scores (nondominant, sum of both hands, difference between dominant and nondominant), especially for women. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value tables are presented. With specificity set at 90% for the comparison groups combined, a dominant hand cutoff score of

A recent qualitative scoring method for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF), the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS), purports to assess visuospatial organization, visual memory and executive function by using multiple series of scores with well-defined criteria. The first objective of this study was to determine whether the BQSS cores correlated with scores derived from the tradition Osterrieth scoring method and which method was more efficient at separating the diagnostics groups. The second objective was to correlate the BQSS executive scores to other nonverbal and verbal tests of executive function, working memory, processing speed, and episodic memory to determine what cognitive abilities the BQSS scores were measuring. The subjects, older depressed patients and healthy controls, were free of any clinical sign of incipient dementia or comorbid neurological disease. Their ROCF drawings were scored using both the Osterrieth and BQSS methods. The BQSS summary drawing scores correlated well with the Osterrieth summary scores for the copy and short-delay recall phases, the percent retained over the delay period and recognition. The BQSS executive scores for Planning, which included both copy and recall phases, correlated with Matrix Reasoning indicating that they assessed nonverbal reasoning but they did not correlate with other traditional executive tests. Planning also contributed to the separation of diagnostics groups and was the most effective score for predicting the percent of the ROCF retained over a short delay. The remaining executive scores did not show a pattern of correlations with other nonverbal executive or working memory scores that would satisfy concerns regarding their interpretation or internal validity when used in an older and/or depressed population. No differences emerged between the two scoring methods in their efficiency for predicting depression.

We present 6 patients who displayed noncredible effort on neuropsychological testing (verified by failures on specialized measures designed to discreetly assess effort status and multiple behavioral inconsistencies) and complained of complete illiteracy secondary to impoverished educational history, learning disability, or acquired brain injury. The Stroop Test, a measure of a specific aspect of executive function requiring inhibition of an automatized oral reading response in favor of a less habitual, competing color-naming response, was administered to these patients. All six subjects claimed that they were unable to perform the Word-Reading trial as a consequence of total reading disability, but on the Color-Word Interference trial, they all committed "errors" by reading the written words. Five of the six subjects also performed substantially slower on the Interference condition relative to the Color-Naming trial, indicating that they were in fact inhibiting a reading response. However, in cases involving complaints of complete reading illiteracy, the observation of these individuals performing an act that they claimed to be unable to do was the most powerful and pathognomonic indicator of deliberate feigning or exaggeration of impairment in these cases.

While neuropsychological studies on 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy) users have been emerging, results have been inconsistent, possibly due to methodological issues. The current study examined the performance of 22 recreational MDMA users compared to 28 age, education, and IQ comparable normal control subjects on a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. Results revealed no significant differences in cognitive functioning between the MDMA users and normal controls. However, greater use of MDMA was associated with poorer scores on several measures of nonverbal memory, and greater frequency users (> or = 50 times) evidenced significantly lower scores on 2 of 3 nonverbal memory tests compared to lesser frequency users (< 50 times). Our results suggest that a subgroup of MDMA patients, specifically heavy MDMA users, evidence declines in nonverbal (visual) memory, however, other cognitive areas appear to be spared.

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT) is a popular measure of visuoconstructive skills and visual memory. A recognition memory trial was recently developed by Meyers and Meyers (1995) and attached to the standard administration of the ROCFT. The addition of this recognition paradigm (comprised of 12 small designs from the original ROCFT stimulus interspersed among 12 foils) makes ROCFT a potentially useful instrument in capturing suspect effort because patients attempting to feign memory difficulties typically operate from the misconception that recognition memory is as impaired as free recall in brain injury and, as a result, suppress recognition performance. The ROCFT (copy, immediate recall [i.e., 3-min recall], and the recognition trial) was administered to four sets of participants: 58 patients with suspect effort; 23 neuropsychology clinic patients with verbal memory impairment, 17 clinic patients with visual memory impairment, and 30 clinic patients without memory impairment. Group comparisons revealed significant group differences in direct copy, immediate recall, and recognition scores of the ROCFT (p<.0001), with the suspect effort group displaying significantly lower performance on the copy and immediate recall scores than the verbal memory impaired and nonmemory impaired clinic patient groups, and significantly lower recognition scores than all three clinical groups. Furthermore, qualitative examination of the recognition trial revealed the presence of "atypical recognition errors" that were endorsed with significantly higher frequency by the suspect effort patients. A combination score incorporating the copy, true positive recognition, and atypical recognition error scores yielded a sensitivity of 74% while misclassifying only approximately 4% of verbal memory impaired clinic patients, 12% of visual memory impaired clinic patients, and 3% of nonmemory impaired clinic patients. Thus, the ROCFT+recognition trial show considerable potential for detecting noncredible effort.

Patients with dementia, particularly those with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), are reported to display marked negative symptoms, including apathy, lack of initiative, and flattened affect, similar to those observed in schizophrenic patients. However, negative symptoms have yet to be formally quantified in an FTD population. Twenty-seven patients with FTD (11 primarily right-sided, 8 primarily left-sided, and 4 symmetric) and 7 patients with Alzheimer's disease were rated on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and the Emotional Blunting scale. The FTD patients registered significantly more negative symptoms than the Alzheimer's patients, averaging a threefold increase; groups did not significantly differ in positive symptoms. Negative symptom scale scores were negatively correlated with nonverbal executive skills (23-44% shared variance), verbal executive skills (up to 25% shared variance) and verbal memory (up to 20% shared variance), but were unrelated to measures of attention, verbal and nonverbal information processing, nonverbal memory, language, and constructional skill. In contrast, positive symptoms were positively correlated with constructional skill (19% shared variance) and attentional scores (15% shared variance). These findings add to the existing literature relating negative symptoms to anterior cerebral hypofunction, and suggest that positive symptoms, at least in this population, may be tied to increased posterior activation.

Previous studies have recommended that multiple measures be employed concurrently to provide converging evidence regarding the presence of suspect effort during neuropsychological assessment. However, if the tests are highly correlated they do not represent independent sources of information. To date, no study has examined correspondence between effort tests. The present study assessed the relationships between eight measures which can be used to assess effort (Rey 15-item, Rey Dot Counting Test, Rey Word Recognition Test, RAVLT recognition trial, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test effort equation, Digit Span, Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words, and "b" Test) in a sample of 105 patients in litigation or attempting to obtain/maintain disability compensation and who displayed noncredible symptoms based on psychometric performance and behavioral criteria. Modest to moderate correlations were observed between test summary scores with only two measures sharing more than 50% score variance (Digit Span and Dot Counting). Moderate correlations were also observed between individual test scores reflecting indices of response time, free recall, recognition, and false positive errors, providing possible evidence that patients may use specific strategies when producing noncredible performances. Overall the results suggest that the use of these various tests generally provides nonredundant data regarding patient credibility in neuropsychological evaluations.

In two litigating patients with histories of severe brain injury (i.e., coma > or =2 days and residual brain imaging abnormalities), noncredible cognitive symptomatology was demonstrated by: (1) "failed" performance on multiple cognitive "effort" tests, (2) noncredible performance on standard neuropsychological instruments, (3) questionable validity of personality inventory profiles, and (4) marked inconsistency in test performance across testing evaluations or marked inconsistency between test scores and activities of daily living documented through surveillance videotapes. Some patients with severe traumatic brain injury show substantial, if not full recovery, and in a litigating context, may feign cognitive symptoms. These cases indicate that tests to verify cognitive effort should be routinely administered to all patients in litigation or who have other motive to feign symptoms, not just patients with mild or questionable brain injury.

A frontal, or executive, variant of Alzheimer's disease (EAD) has been described in the literature in which frontal dysfunction accompanies temporal and parietal changes in the early stages of the illness. However, no study has empirically investigated associated aspects, such as neuropsychiatric symptoms, instrumental activities of daily living, or caregiver burden in this EAD subgroup. We compared the performance of two subgroups of mild Alzheimer's disease patients (e.g., EAD and typical Alzheimer's disease; TAD) on neuropsychological and associated measures. Results revealed that the EAD group, selected based on poor executive scores, did not significantly differ from the TAD group on nonexecutive neuropsychological tests of intelligence, language, verbal and nonverbal memory, or visual-spatial abilities. However, the EAD group evidenced more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms, impaired activities of daily living, and greater caregiver distress than the TAD group. Thus, the EAD subgroup is characterized by executive dysfunction, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and functional disability in excess of that seen in TAD. Whether our EAD subgroup represents an actual frontal variant of Alzheimer's disease awaits replication in a larger sample including neuroimaging and pathological confirmation, as well as longitudinal assessment of cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Bernard (1990), and Bernard, Houston, and Natoli (1993) identified a discriminant function, derived from Rey figure recall score and RAVLT trial 1 and recognition, which discriminated simulators and controls with 77--85% accuracy. However, in the current study, application of the discriminant function to patients with suspect effort, brain injured patients, and controls, revealed excellent sensitivity (95%) but low specificity (33% for patients, 61% for controls). A new discriminant function using the same Rey figure and RAVLT scores, derived from actual patients with documented suspect effort and patients with confirmed brain injury, resulted in an overall classification of 85% correct, with only 16% of suspect effort and 15% of brain injured patients misidentified. Use of a discriminant function score of /=91%.

Numerous publications on the Rey 15-item Memorization Test have cited limitations primarily in test sensitivity, as well as to some extent in specificity. In the current study, 49 patients with suspect effort, 36 neuropsychology clinic patients not in litigation or attempting to secure disability, 33 learning disabled college students, and 60 normal controls were administered the Rey Test in standard format followed by a recognition trial. A free recall score <9 was found to have excellent specificity (97-100%), although sensitivity was modest (47%). However, use of a combined recall and recognition score (i.e., free recall + [recognition - false positives] <20) substantially increased sensitivity (71%) while maintaining high specificity (> or=92%).

This meta-analysis summarizes the broad spectrum of neuropsychological research on HIV disease across a sample of 41 primary studies and an aggregate of 8,616 participants for 10 major neuropsychological ability areas. Analyses of the course of cognitive decline within and across Centers for Disease Control classifications reveals statistically significant cognitive deficits from asymptomatic HIV to AIDS. Effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) were calculated to reflect between-group (asymptomatic, symptomatic, AIDS) differences in each neuropsychological domain. Relatively small effect sizes were obtained for the asymptomatic (0.05-0.21) patients, and generally small to moderate effect sizes were obtained for symptomatic (0.18-0.65) HIV+ patients, with motor functioning exhibiting the greatest effects in this later disease stage. The most notable deficits in cognitive functioning were found in the AIDS group with moderate (attention and concentration) to large (motor functioning) effect sizes with values ranging from 0.42-0.82. Comparison of cognitive functioning as a function of disease progression revealed that motor functioning, executive skills, and information processing speed were among the cognitive domains showing the greatest decline from early to later stages of HIV. These findings indicate that cognitive deficits in the early stages of HIV are small and increase in the later phases of the illness, and that specific patterns of cognitive deficits can be detected with disease progression. These results and their clinical utility are further discussed.

Even though the veracity of children's claim of psychiatric symptoms has received increased attention in recent years, identification of noncredible neuropsychological symptoms in children has been virtually overlooked in clinical practice and research. A case is presented of a 9-year-old child involved in litigation regarding a head injury sustained when he was struck by a car. Neuropsychological evaluation revealed evidence of feigned cognitive symptoms; the child displayed noncredible performance on several specialized tests designed to discreetly assess effort and an atypical pattern of responses on standard cognitive measures, as well as discrepancies between neuropsychological scores and tests administered in school and the rehab setting. Results demonstrate that children as young as 9 years of age are capable of feigning cognitive impairment, which highlights the need for routine evaluation of effort, irrespective of the age of the patient.

Objective:This review provides a summary of historical details and current practice activities related to Forensic Neuropsychology (FN). Under the auspices of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), the Forensic Neuropsychology Special Interest Group (FNSIG) views the FN as a subspecialty, which has developed over time as the straightforward result of more than 20 years of numerous publications, extensive continuing education, focused research and growth of forensic practice within neuropsychology. In this article, the FNSIG core work group documents and integrates information that is the basis of efforts to consolidate practice knowledge and facilitate attainment of forensic practice competencies by clinical neuropsychologists. Method:Overview of continuing education topics at professional conferences, search results that identify relevant books and peer-reviewed publications, as well as pertinent findings across years of large-scale national survey results. Results:Relevant evidence has shown for decades that FN is prominent within Clinical Neuropsychology as practiced in the United States and Canada. A majority of U.S. neuropsychologists have received FN training and provide forensic evaluation services. FN practice time per week is considerable for many practitioners, and across survey epochs has been shown to be increasing. Conclusion:The present review leads to the conclusion that in the interest of promoting the acquisition of competence, FN practice should remain a focal point of training and continuing education. Alternate routes to attain competence are discussed, as are ongoing professional activities that undoubtedly will ensure continued growth of, and interest in, the subspecialty of FN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To provide education regarding the critical importance of test security for neuropsychological and psychological tests, and to establish recommendations for best practices for maintaining test security in forensic, clinical, teaching, and research settings. Previous test security guidelines were not adequately specified. Neuropsychologists practicing in a broad range of settings collaborated to develop detailed and specific guidance regarding test security to best ensure continued viability of neuropsychological and psychological tests. Implications of failing to maintain test security for both the practice of neuropsychology and for society at large were identified. Types of test data that can be safely disclosed to nonpsychologists are described. Specific procedures can be followed that will minimize risk of invalidating future use of neuropsychological and psychological measures. Clinical neuropsychologists must commit to protecting sensitive neuropsychological and psychological test information from exposure to nonpsychologists, and now have specific recommendations that will guide that endeavor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Performance validity tests (PVTs) are included in neuropsychological testing to ensure examinees are performing to the best of their abilities. There are two types of PVTs: embedded and free standing. Embedded PVTs are tests that are derived from standard neuropsychological tests of various cognitive domains. Freestanding PVTs are tests that are designed with the intention of being a PVT. Research studies show that undergraduate samples do not always performed to the best of their abilities. The purpose of this study was to cross-validate previous research on the topic of performance validity in a college sample. It was predicted that the non-credible group would demonstrate higher failure rates on embedded PVTs compared to the credible group. Participants and Methods: The sample consisted of 198 neurologically and psychologically healthy undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.69 (SD = 2.11). Participants were broken into two groups: non-credible (i.e., participants that failed two or more PVTs) and credible (i.e., participants that did not failed two or more PVTs). The Rey-Osterrith copy test, Comalli Stroop part A (CSA), B (CSB), and C (CSC), Trail Making Test part A and B, Symbol Digit Modalities Test written (SDMT-W) and oral (SDMT-O) parts, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) letter fluency, and Finger Tapping Test were used to evaluate failure rates in our sample. PVT cutoff scores were use from previously validated in the literature. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate failure rates between the groups. Results: Chi-square analysis revealed significant failure rate differences between groups on several PVTs. Results revealed that 15% of the non-credible group failed the CSA compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=14.77, p=.000. Meanwhile, 26% of the non-credible group failed the CSB compared to 2% of the credible group, X2=24.72, p=.000. Furthermore, results showed that 11% of the non-credible group failed the CSC compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=13.05, p=.000.Next, 48% of the non-credible group failed the Trail Making Test part A compared to 8% of the credible group, X2=31.61, p=.000. We also found that 15% of the non-credible group failed the SDMT-W part compared to 1% of the credible group,X2=19.18, p=.000. Meanwhile, on the SDMT-O part 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=25.52, p =.000. On the COWAT letter fluency task 74% of the non-credible group failed compared to 19% of the credible group, X2=36.90, p=.000. Finally, results revealed on the Finger Tapping Test 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 3% of the credible group, X2=10.01, p=.002. Conclusions: As expected, the non-credible participants demonstrated significantly higher PVT failure rates compared to credible participants. A possible explanation driving higher failure rates in our sample can be due to cultural variables (e.g., bilingualism). It was suggested by researchers that linguistic factors may be impacting higher PVT failure rates and developing a false-positive error. Future research using undergraduate samples need to identify which PVT's are being impacted by linguist factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Neuropsychological evaluations are used to examine a person's current cognitive functioning. Performance validity tests (PVT) are included in neuropsychological test batteries to ensure that examinees are performing to the best of their abilities and identify non-credible performance. There are two types of PVTs: freestanding and embedded. A freestanding PVT is a cognitive test created to evaluate performance validity and do not measure any type of cognition directly. Meanwhile, an embedded PVT is a task design to evaluate some sort of cognition (e.g., memory) by using traditional neuropsychological tests (e.g., Trail Making Test) and performance validity. Research suggests that undergraduate college students are not always performing to the best of their abilities when completing a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. In fact, in one study where an undergraduate college sample was given three PVTs, it was reported that 56% of the participants failed at least one PVT in their first session and 31% in their second session. Research has also shown that speaking multiple languages can influence cognition. The purpose of this study was to identify in three credible language groups of college students what PVTs does bilingualism influence higher failure rates. It was predicted that bilingual college students would significantly demonstrate higher PVTs failure rates compared to monolingual college students. Participants and Methods: The sample consisted of 70 English first language monolinguals (EFLM), 33 English first language bilinguals (EFLB), and 68 English second language bilinguals (ESLB) that were psychologically and neurologically healthy. All participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery in English. The Rey-Osterrith complex figure copy test, Comalli Stroop part A, B, and C, Trail Making Test part A and B, Symbol Digit Modalities Test written and oral parts, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) letter fluency, and Finger Tapping Test were the tasks used as embedded PVTs to evaluate failure rates in our sample. Moreover, all participants were credible (i.e., they did not fail two or more PVTs). PVT cutoff scores were selected for each embedded PVT from previous literature. Chi-square analysis were used to evaluate failure rates between language groups on each PVT. Results: We found no significant failure rate differences between language groups on any of the PVTs. However, while no significant group differences were found, on the COWAT letter fluency results revealed higher failure rates between the three language groups (i.e., 13% EFLM, 24% EFLB, and 22% ESLB) compared to other PVTs. Conclusions: Our data suggested no significant failure rate differences between language groups. It has been suggested in previous studies that linguistic factors impact PVT performance and test interpretation. On the COWAT letter fluency task, it is possible that language is driving higher failure rates between bilingual speakers, even though we found no significant failure rates or performance differences between the three language groups. Future studies should examine language groups and other cultural variables (e.g., time perspective) to determine what may be driving high failure rates on the COWAT letter fluency task in credible participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Here we report an investigation on the accuracy of the b Test, a measure to identify malingering of cognitive symptoms, in detecting malingerers of mild cognitive impairment. Method: Three groups of participants, patients with Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (n = 21), healthy elders (controls, n = 21), and healthy elders instructed to simulate mild cognitive disorder (malingerers, n = 21) were administered two background neuropsychological tests (MMSE, FAB) as well as the b Test. Results: Malingerers performed significantly worse on all error scores as compared to patients and controls, and performed poorly than controls, but comparably to patients, on the time score. Patients performed significantly worse than controls on all scores, but both groups showed the same pattern of more omission than commission errors. By contrast, malingerers exhibited the opposite pattern with more commission errors than omission errors. Machine learning models achieve an overall accuracy higher than 90% in distinguishing patients from malingerers on the basis of b Test results alone. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that b Test error scores accurately distinguish patients with Mild Neurocognitive Disorder from malingerers and may complement other validated procedures such as the Medical Symptom Validity Test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practice guidelines recommend the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) to detect noncredible performance during neuropsychological evaluations, and PVTs embedded in standard cognitive tests achieve this goal most efficiently. The present study examined the utility of the Comalli version of the Stroop Test as a measure of response bias in a large sample of "real world" noncredible patients (n = 129) as compared with credible neuropsychology clinic patients (n=233). The credible group performed significantly better than the noncredible group on all trials, but particularly on word-reading (Stroop A) and color- naming (Stroop B); cut-scores for Stroop A and Stroop B trials were associated with moderate sensitivity (49-53%) as compared to the low sensitivity found for the color interference trial (29%). Some types of diagnoses (including learning disability, severe traumatic brain injury, psychosis, and depression), very advanced age (⩾ 80), and lowered IQ were associated with increased rates of false positive identifications, suggesting the need for some adjustments to cut-offs in these subgroups. Despite some previous reports of an inverted Stroop effect (i.e., color-naming worse than color interference) in noncredible subjects, individual Stroop word reading and color naming trials were much more effective in identifying response bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present study a large sample of credible patients (n = 172) scored significantly higher than a large sample of noncredible participants (n = 195) on several WAIS-III Picture Completion variables: Age Adjusted Scaled Score, raw score, a 'Rarely Missed' index (the nine items least often missed by credible participants), a 'Rarely Correct' index (nine items correct <26% of the time in noncredible participants and with at least a 25 percentage-point lower endorsement rate as compared to credible participants), and a 'Most Discrepant' index (the six items that were the most discrepant in correct endorsement between groups-at least a 40 percentage point difference). Comparison of the various scores showed that the 'Most Discrepant' index outperformed all the others in identifying response bias (nearly 65% sensitivity at 92.8% specificity as compared to at most 59% sensitivity for the other scores). While no differences in Picture Completion scores were observed between less-educated (<12 years) and better-educated (≥12 years) credible participants, noncredible participants with <12 years of education scored significantly poorer than noncredible participants with 12 or more years of education. On the 'Most Discrepant' index, 76.7% of less-educated noncredible participants were detected as compared to 58.3% of better-educated noncredible participants. Results of the current study suggest that the Picture Completion subtest of the WAIS-III is an effective measure of response bias, and that it may have a unique role in identifying suboptimal effort in less-educated test takers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently published practice standards recommend that multiple effort indicators be interspersed throughout neuropsychological evaluations to assess for response bias, which is most efficiently accomplished through use of effort indicators from standard cognitive tests already included in test batteries. The present study examined the utility of a timed recognition trial added to standard administration of the WAIS-III Digit Symbol subtest in a large sample of “real world” noncredible patients (n=82) as compared with credible neuropsychology clinic patients (n=89). Scores from the recognition trial were more sensitive in identifying poor effort than were standard Digit Symbol scores, and use of an equation incorporating Digit Symbol Age–Corrected Scaled Scores plus accuracy and time scores from the recognition trial was associated with nearly 80% sensitivity at 88.7% specificity. Thus, inclusion of a brief recognition trial to Digit Symbol administration has the potential to provide accurate assessment of response bias. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The effects of forensic examiner role on validity scores have rarely been studied empirically. We used a repeated measures design to examine the association between examiner role (plaintiff- and defense-selected neuropsychologists) and scores on eight Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2 validity scores (MMPI-2-VRIN, -TRIN, -L, -K, -F, -Fb, -Fp, and -FBS) of the same 80 individuals. All 80 were involved in litigation following mostly minor neurological injuries. We found no significant within-group differences on any of the MMPI-2 validity scales. Concordance of pass/fail rates between examinations was above 80%, except for MMPI-2-Fb. For example, the Symptom Validity Scale (MMPI-2-FBS) showed equivalently high failure rates (70%) during both examinations. This study does not support the view that examiner role affects symptom validity scores in forensic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A subset of patients who present for neuropsychological testing report dysfunction in daily life activities secondary to cognitive deficits, but are found on formal testing to have no objective abnormalities, raising the possibility of “neurocognitive hypochondriasis.” Such a case is presented, and the factors that appear to give rise to this presentation are explored. Cases of hypochondriacal overconcern regarding cognitive function are likely not rare, particularly given research showing there is little correlation between objective report of cognitive dysfunction and actual test scores in such conditions as mild traumatic brain injury, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, toxic mold exposure, and post-polio syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While it is recommended that judgments regarding the credibility of test performance be based on the results of more than one effort indicator, and recent efforts have been made to improve interpretation of multiple effort test failure, the field currently lacks adequate guidelines for using multiple measures of effort in concert with one another. A total of 103 patients were referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation, which included multiple measures of negative response bias embedded in standard test batteries. Using any pairwise failure combination to predict diagnostic classification was superior (sensitivity = 83.8%, specificity = 93.9%, overall hit rate = 90.3%) to using any one test by itself and to using any three-test failure combination. Further, the results were comparable to the results of logistical regression analyses using the embedded indicators as continuous predictors. Given its parsimony and clinical utility, the pairwise failure model is therefore a recommended criterion for identifying non-credible performance; however, there are of course other important contextual factors and influences to consider, which are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between IQ and nine effort indicators was examined in a sample of 189 neuropsychology clinic outpatients who were not in litigation or attempting to obtain disability. Participants with the lowest IQ (50-59) failed approximately 60% of the effort tests, while patients with an IQ of 60 to 69 failed 44% of effort indicators, and individuals with borderline IQ (70 to 79) exhibited a 17% failure rate. All patients with IQ < 70 failed at least one effort test. Cutoffs for the Warrington Recognition Memory Test (Words) and Finger Tapping maintained the highest specificities in low IQ samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We obtained Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) scores on 91 (35 male and 56 female) healthy, well-educated individuals aged 45 to 83. Women scored better than men on six WCST scores (categories, errors, perseverative responses, % perseverative errors, % conceptual level responses, and trials to first category), while subjects with more than 16 years of education outscored those limited to high school education on four measures (perseverative responses, errors, % perseverative errors, % conceptual level responses). Individuals older than 70 years of age scored less well than younger subjects on only two indices (errors, We conceptual level responses). Full Scale IQ was not related to WCST scores. Our findings suggest that WCST scores should be interpreted within the context of patient gender, education, and age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Seashore Rhythm Test has been reported to be sensitive to right hemisphere dysfunction and, in particular right temporal lobe integrity. However, several reports have appeared that have failed to support these earlier findings. In the latter studies, the confounding effects of possible bilateral or extratemporal lobe dysfunction in the patient groups could not be ruled out. The present study investigated the Seashore Rhythm Test performance of 38 right-handed seizure patients with evidence of glucose hypometabolism restricted to the right (n = 23) or left (n = 15) temporal lobe on positron computed tomography. Patients were studied prior to and subsequent to unilateral anterior temporal lobectomy for control of medically intractable seizures. No significant difference was found between right and left temporal lobe dysfunctional patients, either pre-or post-lobectomy, which further corroborates that the Seashore Rhythm Test does not discriminate between patients with right vs. left temporal lobe damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite awareness that depression may affect performance on commonly used neuropsychological tests, little research has been conducted on the relative impact of severity and type of depression on higher problem-solving ability. Major depressives (n = 13), dysthymics (n = 17), and non-psychiatric comparison subjects (n = 18) were administered the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Although diagnostic category was related only marginally to some WCST measures after controlling for intellectual function, depressive symptom severity emerged as an independent predictor of Total Errors, Perseverative Responses, and Failure to Maintain Set. These findings lend support to the suggestion that neuropsychological test batteries should include assessment for depression and suggest that even relatively mild depression may affect WCST scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twenty-four patients who developed their first psychotic episode after the age of 45 were studied with MRI and comprehensive neuropsychological testing and compared with 72 healthy elderly subjects. The patients demonstrated more clinical abnormalities on MRI, were more likely to have large white-matter lesions or metabolic illness, and did more poorly on many neuropsychological tests, particularly those testing frontal-lobe and memory abilities. We conclude that structural brain injury is commonly associated with the late onset of psychosis. Neuroimaging investigations are a valuable component in the evaluation of this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a prospective study of late-life onset psychosis, five of the first 27 patients studied had extensive white-matter lesions demonstrated by MRI and/or CT. None of 60 age-matched psychiatrically healthy controls demonstrated such lesions. All five patients had a mild dementia and a frontal behavioural syndrome. In addition, every patient performed poorly on neuropsychological tests of frontal function. Dysfunction of the frontal cortex associated with white-matter lesions appears to contribute to the clinical picture of some cases of late-life psychosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]