Search

Objective: Performance validity test (PVT) research studies commonly utilize a known-groups design, but the criterion grouping approaches within the design vary greatly from one study to another. At the present time, it is unclear as to what degree different criterion grouping approaches might impact PVT classification accuracy statistics., Method: To analyze this, the authors used three different criterion grouping approaches to examine how classification accuracy statistics of a PVT (Word Choice Test; WCT) would differ. The three criterion grouping approaches included: (1) failure of 2+ PVTs versus failure of 0 PVTs, (2) failure of 2+ PVTs versus failure of 0-1 PVT, and (3) failure of a stand-alone PVT versus passing of a stand-alone PVT (Test of Memory Malingering)., Results: When setting specificity at ≥.90, WCT cutoff scores ranged from 41 to 44 and associated sensitivity values ranged from .64 to .88, depending on the criterion grouping approach that was utilized., Conclusions: When using a stand-alone PVT to define criterion group status, classification accuracy rates of the WCT were higher than expected, likely due to strong correlations between the reference PVT and the WCT. This held true even when considering evidence that this grouping approach results in higher rates of criterion group misclassification. Conversely, when using criterion grouping approaches that utilized failure of 2+ PVTs, accuracy rates were more consistent with expectations. These findings demonstrate that criterion grouping approaches can impact PVT classification accuracy rates and resultant cutoff scores. Strengths, weaknesses, and practical implications of each of the criterion grouping approaches are discussed.

The present study examined the impact of performance validity test (PVT) failure on the Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) in a sample of 252 neuropsychological patients. Word reading performance differed significantly according to PVT failure status, and number of PVTs failed accounted for 7.4% of the variance in word reading performance, even after controlling for education. Furthermore, individuals failing ≥2 PVTs were twice as likely as individuals passing all PVTs (33% vs. 16%) to have abnormally low obtained word reading scores relative to demographically predicted scores when using a normative base rate of 10% to define abnormality. When compared with standardization study clinical groups, those failing ≥2 PVTs were twice as likely as patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and as likely as patients with Alzheimer's dementia to obtain abnormally low TOPF word reading scores. Findings indicate that TOPF word reading based estimates of premorbid functioning should not be interpreted in individuals invalidating cognitive testing.

Objective: Normative sample composition can vary notably as a function of exclusionary criteria in older adult samples given that typical medical conditions of exclusion become more prevalent with age. Older adult norms may consist of typically aging or healthy aging individuals according to the stringency of the exclusion criteria, a difference illustrated when comparing two normative samples for the RBANS: the original standardization sample and the Oklahoma sample., Methods: The current study examined the clinical impact of norm selection in older adults by analyzing impairment classification rates for 105 older adult behavioral health inpatients. Rates of impaired performance (scaled score ≤4 or its normalized equivalent) were compared across RBANS subtests using standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample normative data in patients aged 70-79 (n = 57) and 80-89 (n = 48)., Results: Across most RBANS subtests, utilization of the original standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample norms resulted in a greater proportion of individuals classified as impaired. These findings occurred across both age groups and persevered when holding constant the sample normalization process. Overall, use of the standardization sample vs. Oklahoma sample normative data were 1-11 times more likely to indicate impairment, with one of the more notable differences seen on the Coding subtest in the 80-89 sample (65% vs. 8% labeled as impaired)., Conclusions: Sample composition and exclusionary criteria require consideration when selecting an appropriate normative sample against which to compare older adult test performance. Salient differences between typically aging vs. healthy aging older adult norms are discussed.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is a psychological testing tool used to measure psychological and personality constructs. The MMPI-2 has proven helpful in identifying individuals with nonepileptic events/nonepileptic seizures. However, the MMPI-2 has had some updates that enhanced its original scales. The aim of this article was to test the utility of updated MMPI-2 scales in predicting the likelihood of non-epileptic seizures in individuals admitted to an EEG video monitoring unit. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of traditional MMPI-2 Clinical Scales against more homogenous MMPI-2 Harris-Lingoes subscales and the newer Restructured Clinical (RC) scales. Our results showed that the Restructured Scales did not show significant improvement over the original Clinical scales. However, one Harris-Lingoes subscale (HL4 of Clinical Scale 3) did show improved predictive utility over the original Clinical scales as well as over the newer Restructured Clinical scales. Our study suggests that the predictive utility of the MMPI-2 can be improved using already existing scales. This is particularly useful for those practitioners who are not invested in switching over to the newly developed MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF)., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is caused by thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency, typically resulting from malnutrition secondary to chronic alcohol abuse. Less often, other conditions can lead to malnutrition and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. We describe a 35-year-old man who developed Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome with a typical neurologic and neuropsychological presentation after somatic delusions led him to refuse to eat. Cases like his serve to heighten awareness of the interplay between psychiatric and neurologic conditions, their sometimes atypical pathogenesis, and the value to primary care providers of consulting with psychiatrists, neurologists, and neuropsychologists when managing patients with possible Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.

Previous research has demonstrated RBS and FBS-r to identify non-credible reporters of cognitive symptoms, but the extent that these scales might be influenced by true neurocognitive dysfunction has not been previously studied. The present study examined the relationship between these cognitive validity scales and neurocognitive performance across seven domains of cognitive functioning, both before and after controlling for PVT status in 120 individuals referred for neuropsychological evaluations. Variance in RBS, but not FBS-r, was significantly accounted for by neurocognitive test performance across most cognitive domains. After controlling for PVT status, however, relationships between neurocognitive test performance and validity scales were no longer significant for RBS, and remained non-significant for FBS-r. Additionally, PVT failure accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in both RBS and FBS-r. Results support both the convergent and discriminant validity of RBS and FBS-r. As neither scale was impacted by true neurocognitive dysfunction, these findings provide further support for the use of RBS and FBS-r in neuropsychological evaluations., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The number of separable cognitive dimensions in schizophrenia has been debated. Guided by the extant factor analytic literature, the NIMH Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative selected seven cognitive domains relevant to treatment studies in schizophrenia: speed of processing, attention/vigilance, working memory, verbal learning, visual learning, reasoning and problem solving, and social cognition. These domains are assessed in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The aim of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the beta battery of the MCCB to compare the fit of the MATRICS consensus seven-domain model to other models in the current literature on cognition in schizophrenia., Method: Using data from 281 schizophrenia outpatients, we compared the seven correlated factors model with alternative models. Specifically, we compared the 7-factor model to (a) a single-factor model, (b) a three correlated factors model including speed of processing, working memory, and general cognition, and (c) a hierarchical model in which seven first-order factors loaded onto a second-order general cognitive factor., Results: Multiple fit indices indicated the seven correlated factors model was the best fit for the data and provided significant improvement in model fit beyond the comparison models., Conclusions: These results support the assessment of these seven cognitive dimensions in clinical trials of interventions to improve cognition in schizophrenia. Because these cognitive factors are separable to some degree, it is plausible that specific interventions may have differential effects on the domains.

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is the most used performance validity test in neuropsychology, but does not measure response consistency, which is central in the measurement of credible presentation. Gunner, Miele, Lynch, and McCaffrey (2012) developed the Albany Consistency Index (ACI) to address this need. The ACI consistency measurement, however, may penalize examinees, resulting in suboptimal accuracy. The Invalid Forgetting Frequency Index (IFFI), created for the present study, utilizes an algorithm to identify and differentiate learning and inconsistent response patterns across TOMM trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the ACI and IFFI against a reference test (Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction criteria), and to compare both to the standard TOMM indexes. This retrospective case-control study used 59 forensic cases from an outpatient clinic in Southern Kansas. Results indicated that sensitivity, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of the IFFI were superior to both the TOMM indexes and ACI. Logistic regression odds ratios were similar for TOMM Trial 2, Retention, and IFFI (1.25, 1.24, 1.25, respectively), with the ACI somewhat lower (1.18). The IFFI had the highest rate of group membership predictions (79.7%). Implications and limitations of the present study are discussed.

Frontotemporal dementia is a cause of behavioral disturbance that usually appears in individuals between 45 and 65 years of age. The authors present the case of a 65-year-old patient that illustrates how frontotemporal dementia can be misdiagnosed based on a behavioral pattern that suggests the presence of a primary mood disorder. Early accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia and subsequent supportive measures can allow patients and families to make important decisions about business and legal affairs and how to spend remaining leisure time in the most meaningful and enjoyable way possible.

The Test of Memory Malingering is one of the most popular and heavily researched validity tests available for use in neuropsychological evaluations. Recent research has suggested, however, that the original indices and cutoffs may require modifications to increase sensitivity rates. Some of these modifications lack cross-validation and no study has examined all indices in a single sample. This study compares Trial 1, Trial 2, the Retention Trial, and the newly created Albany Consistency Index in a criterion group forensic neuropsychological sample. Findings lend support for the newly created indices and cutoff scores. Implications and cautionary statements are provided and discussed.

This study examined differences in raw scores on the Symptom Validity Scale and Response Bias Scale (RBS) from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 in three criterion groups: (i) valid traumatic brain injured, (ii) invalid traumatic brain injured, and (iii) psychogenic non-epileptic seizure disorders. Results indicate that a >30 raw score cutoff for the Symptom Validity Scale accurately identified 50% of the invalid traumatic brain injured group, while misclassifying none of the valid traumatic brain injured group and 6% of the psychogenic non-epileptic seizure disorder group. Using a >15 RBS raw cutoff score accurately classified 50% of the invalid traumatic brain injured group and misclassified fewer than 10% of the valid traumatic brain injured and psychogenic non-epileptic seizure disorder groups. These cutoff scores used conjunctively did not misclassify any members of the psychogenic non-epileptic seizure disorder or valid traumatic brain injured groups, while accurately classifying 44% of the invalid traumatic brain injured individuals. Findings from this preliminary study suggest that the conjunctive use of the Symptom Validity Scale and the RBS from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 may be useful in differentiating probable malingering from individuals with brain injuries and conversion disorders.

Background: The Coin-in-the-Hand Test was developed to help clinicians distinguish patients who are neurocognitively impaired from patients who are exaggerating or feigning memory complaints. Previous findings have shown that participants asked to feign memory problems and patients suspected of malingering performed worse on the test than patients with genuine neurocognitive dysfunction., Objective: We reviewed the literature on the Coin-in-the-Hand Test and evaluated test performance by 45 hospitalized patients who had dementia with moderately to severely impaired cognition., Methods: We analyzed Coin-in-the-Hand Test scores, neuropsychological findings, and other data to determine whether demographic or neurocognitive variables affected Coin-in-the-Hand Test scores. We also calculated base rates of these scores and provided cutoff ranges for clinical use., Results: Coin-in-the-Hand Test scores were independent of neurocognitive functioning, age, education level, and type of dementia. Base rates of scores suggest that a low cutoff can help differentiate between patients with true neurocognitive impairments and those exaggerating or feigning memory complaints., Conclusions: Both the literature and our findings show the Coin-in-the-Hand Test to have potential as a quick and easy screening tool to detect neurocognitive symptom exaggeration. This test could effectively supplement commonly used neurocognitive screens such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a heavily researched symptom validity test with a recent literature review yielding more than 20 studies ranging in dates from 1994 to 2011. Unfortunately, limitations within some of the research minimize clinical generalizability. This systematic review and cross-validation study was conducted to address these limitations, thus increasing the measure's clinical utility. Sensitivity and specificity rates were calculated for the ≤6 and ≤7 cutoffs when data were globally combined and divided by clinical groups. The cross-validation of specific diagnostic groups was consistent with the data reported in the literature. Overall, caution should be used when utilizing the ≤7 cutoff in all clinical groups and when utilizing the ≤6 cutoff in the following groups: cerebrovascular accident, severe memory disorders, mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and English as a second language. Additional limitations and cautions are provided.

This study utilized multiple criterion group neuropsychological samples to evaluate the "over-reporting" and "under-reporting" MMPI-2-RF validity scales. The five criterion groups included in this study were (1) litigating traumatic brain injury patients who failed Slick et al. criteria for probable malingering, (2) litigating traumatic brain injury patients who passed Slick et al. criteria, (3) mixed neuropsychological outpatients who passed SVTs and were diagnosed with primary neurological conditions, (4) mixed neuropsychological outpatients who passed SVTs and were diagnosed with primary psychiatric conditions, and (5) epileptic seizure disorder inpatients who were diagnosed via video-EEG. Using the data from these groups, cumulative percentages for all possible T-scores and sensitivity and specificity rates for optimal cutoff scores were determined. When specificity rates were set at 90% across all non-malingering neurological condition groups, sensitivity rates ranged from 48% (FBS-r) to 10% (K-r).

The MATRICS Psychometric and Standardization Study was conducted as a final stage in the development of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The study included 176 persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and 300 community residents. Data were analyzed to examine the cognitive profile of clinically stable schizophrenia patients on the MCCB. Secondarily, the data were analyzed to identify which combination of cognitive domains and corresponding cut-off scores best discriminated patients from community residents, and patients competitively employed vs. those not. Raw scores on the ten MCCB tests were entered into the MCCB scoring program which provided age- and gender-corrected T-scores on seven cognitive domains. To test for between-group differences, we conducted a 2 (group)×7 (cognitive domain) MANOVA with follow-up independent t-tests on the individual domains. Classification and regression trees (CART) were used for the discrimination analyses. Examination of patient T-scores across the seven cognitive domains revealed a relatively compact profile with T-scores ranging from 33.4 for speed of processing to 39.3 for reasoning and problem-solving. Speed of processing and social cognition best distinguished individuals with schizophrenia from community residents; speed of processing along with visual learning and attention/vigilance optimally distinguished patients competitively employed from those who were not. The cognitive profile findings provide a standard to which future studies can compare results from other schizophrenia samples and related disorders; the classification results point to specific areas and levels of cognitive impairment that may advance work rehabilitation efforts., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

A psychometric analysis of 2 interview-based measures of cognitive deficits was conducted: the 21-item Clinical Global Impression of Cognition in Schizophrenia (CGI-CogS; Ventura et al., 2008), and the 20-item Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS; Keefe et al., 2006), which were administered on 2 occasions to a sample of people with schizophrenia. Traditional psychometrics, bifactor analysis, and item response theory methods were used to explore item functioning and dimensionality and to compare instruments. Despite containing similar item content, responses to the CGI-CogS demonstrated superior psychometric properties (e.g., higher item intercorrelations, better spread of ratings across response categories) relative to the SCoRS. The authors argue that these differences arise mainly from the differential use of prompts and how the items are phrased and scored. Bifactor analysis demonstrated that although both measures capture a broad range of cognitive functioning (e.g., working memory, social cognition), the common variance on each is overwhelmingly explained by a single general factor. Item response theory analyses of the combined pool of 41 items showed that measurement precision is peaked in the mild to moderate range of cognitive impairment. Finally, simulated adaptive testing revealed that only about 10 to 12 items are necessary to achieve latent trait level estimates with reasonably small standard errors for most individuals. This suggests that these interview-based measures of cognitive deficits could be shortened without loss of measurement precision.

Background: Practical, reliable "real world" measures of cognition are needed to supplement neurocognitive performance data to evaluate possible efficacy of new drugs targeting cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia. Because interview-based measures of cognition offer one possible approach, data from the MATRICS initiative (n=176) were used to examine the psychometric properties of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS) and the Clinical Global Impression of Cognition in Schizophrenia (CGI-CogS)., Method: We used classical test theory methods and item response theory to derive the 10-item Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI) from the SCoRS and CGI-CogS ("parent instruments"). Sources of information for CAI ratings included the patient and an informant. Validity analyses examined the relationship between the CAI and objective measures of cognitive functioning, intermediate measures of cognition, and functional outcome., Results: The rater's score from the newly derived CAI (10 items) correlate highly (r=.87) with those from the combined set of the SCoRS and CGI-CogS (41 items). Both the patient (r=.82) and the informant (r=.95) data were highly correlated with the rater's score. The CAI was modestly correlated with objectively measured neurocognition (r=-.32), functional capacity (r=-.44), and functional outcome (r=-.32), which was comparable to the parent instruments., Conclusions: The CAI allows for expert judgment in evaluating a patient's cognitive functioning and was modestly correlated with neurocognitive functioning, functional capacity, and functional outcome. The CAI is a brief, repeatable, and potentially valuable tool for rating cognition in schizophrenia patients who are participating in clinical trials., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The original structure of the RBANS includes five Indexes; however, recent factor analyses support a two-factor solution (Duff et al., 2006; Wilde, 2006). Unfortunately, normative and psychometric data do not currently exist on these two new Indexes. Building on prior work, the current study provides age- and education-corrected normative data to calculate the factor-derived Verbal and Visual RBANS Indexes (Duff et al., 2006) in a large cohort (n = 718) of older adult primary care patients. Psychometric data (e.g., discrepancy scores, internal consistency, retest reliability) on these new Indexes are also presented. These data might allow clinicians and researchers to better assess laterality effects of brain dysfunction when using the RBANS, although clinical validation is needed.

Objective: The consensus cognitive battery developed by the National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH's) Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative includes 10 independently developed tests that are recommended as the standard battery for clinical trials of cognition-enhancing interventions for schizophrenia. To facilitate interpretation of results from the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery using a common scaling across tests, normative data were obtained from a single representative U.S. community sample with the battery administered as a unit., Method: The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery was administered to 300 individuals from the general community at five sites in differing geographic regions. For each site, recruitment was stratified by age, gender, and education. A scientific survey sampling method was used to help avoid sampling bias. The battery was administered in a standard order to each participant in a single session lasting approximately 60 minutes. Descriptive data were generated, and age, gender, and education effects on performance were examined., Results: Prominent age and education effects were observed across tests. The results for gender differed by measure, suggesting the need for age and gender corrections in clinical trials. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery components were co-normed, with allowance for demographic corrections., Conclusions: Co-norming a battery such as the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, comprising tests from independent test developers each with their own set of norms, facilitates valid interpretation of test scores and communication of findings across studies. These normative data will aid in estimating the magnitude of change during clinical trials of cognition-enhancing agents and make it possible to derive more directly interpretable composite scores.

Objective: During the consensus meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (NIMH-MATRICS) Initiative, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration took the position that a drug for this purpose should show changes on 1) an accepted consensus cognitive performance measure and 2) an additional measure (i.e., a co-primary) that is considered functionally meaningful. The goal of the current study was to describe steps to evaluate four potential co-primary measures for psychometric properties and validity., Method: As part of the five-site MATRICS Psychometric and Standardization Study (PASS), two measures of functional capacity and two interview-based measures of cognition were evaluated in 176 patients with schizophrenia (167 of these patients were retested 4 weeks later)., Results: Data are presented for each co-primary measure for test-retest reliability, utility as a repeated measure, relationship to cognitive performance, relationship to functioning, tolerability/practicality, and number of missing data., Conclusions: Psychometric properties of all of the measures were considered acceptable, and the measures were generally comparable across the various criteria, except that the functional capacity measures had stronger relationships to cognitive performance and fewer missing data. The development and evaluation of potential co-primary measures is still at an early stage, and it was decided not to endorse a single measure for clinical trials at this point. The current findings offer the initial steps to identify functionally meaningful co-primary measures in this area and will help to guide further evaluation of such measures.

Objective: The lack of an accepted standard for measuring cognitive change in schizophrenia has been a major obstacle to regulatory approval of cognition-enhancing treatments. A primary mandate of the National Institute of Mental Health's Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative was to develop a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials of cognition-enhancing treatments for schizophrenia through a broadly based scientific evaluation of measures., Method: The MATRICS Neurocognition Committee evaluated more than 90 tests in seven cognitive domains to identify the 36 most promising measures. A separate expert panel evaluated the degree to which each test met specific selection criteria. Twenty tests were selected as a beta battery. The beta battery was administered to 176 individuals with schizophrenia and readministered to 167 of them 4 weeks later so that the 20 tests could be compared directly., Results: The expert panel ratings are presented for the initially selected 36 tests. For the beta battery tests, data on test-retest reliability, practice effects, relationships to functional status, practicality, and tolerability are presented. Based on these data, 10 tests were selected to represent seven cognitive domains in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery., Conclusions: The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.

Objective: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), a recently developed cognitive assessment instrument, has been shown to be useful with a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions, but its factor structure has not been examined., Method: Using 824 community-dwelling elders, the RBANS was examined with confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses., Results: The existing structure of the RBANS was not supported; however, a two-factor solution was., Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers using the RBANS should be cautious when interpreting this measure with its existing structure.

Estimating premorbid cognitive functioning is an important part of any neuropsychological evaluation. This estimate is the benchmark against which current cognitive functioning is compared to establish the existence, degree, and rate of cognitive decline. Typically methods used to estimate premorbid cognitive functioning are based on; (1) demographic information, (2) combined current test performance with demographics, and (3) current reading (word recognition) ability. These approaches each have drawbacks including difficulty estimating premorbid abilities of people close to the extremes of intellectual functioning (i.e., estimating the premorbid ability of individuals in the gifted or borderline intellectual ranges). The current study reviewed the existing data comparing commonly used group administered achievement and college board tests with the Wechsler IQ tests. It is proposed that clinicians may predict premorbid cognitive functioning by applying the well-known predicted-difference method to estimate IQ from group administered achievement test scores. The correlations between group administered achievement and college board tests with the Wechsler IQ tests are reviewed and the descriptive statistics of selected group administered achievement and college board tests are presented.

Neuropsychological assessment plays an important role in the process of diagnosing DAT. Whereas the brief screens are sensitive to the cognitive deficits associated with DAT, full battery measures should be used to rule out early dementia or to differentiate among the various dementing illnesses. Following diagnosis, there are numerous assessment measures that facilitate management and placement decisions. These measures include instruments that help stage the illness to determine severity, instruments that evaluate the patient's capacity to perform activities of daily living, and measures that evaluate for the behavior symptoms common in later-stage dementia.