Search

Objective: Social Security Disability is a common external incentive in neuropsychological evaluations. This study determined base rates of invalidity when patients referred for routine clinical evaluations have Social Security Disability as an external incentive. Method: Patients (n = 242) were grouped as validly or invalidly performing based on the use of multiple performance validity tests. Frequency analyses were then conducted. Results: As a whole, 46.0% of clinically referred patients with Social Security Disability as an external incentive produced invalid data. When divided by disability pursuit status, 58.6% of individuals already receiving Social Security Disability, 44.6% of individuals actively seeking Social Security Disability, and 39.3% of individuals considering seeking Social Security Disability produced invalid data. By comparison, only 8.5% of clinically referred patients without known external incentives produced invalid data. Conclusions: Beyond establishing base rates, these data indicate that the external incentive, not necessarily the evaluation setting, increases the rate of invalidity, as obtained base rates mirror those observed in independent medical examinations. In addition, this study highlights that even patients who report that they are considering but have not committed themselves to pursuing an external incentive frequently invalidate testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research criteria for prodromal dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were published in 2020, but little is known regarding prodromal DLB in clinical settings. Methods: We identified non-demented participants without neurodegenerative disease from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set who converted to DLB at a subsequent visit. Prevalence of neuropsychiatric and motor symptoms were examined up to 5 years prior to DLB diagnosis. Results: The sample included 116 participants clinically diagnosed with DLB and 348 age and sex-matched (1:3) Healthy Controls. Motor slowing was present in approximately 70% of participants 3 years prior to DLB diagnosis. In the prodromal phase, 50% of DLB participants demonstrated gait disorder, 70% had rigidity, 20% endorsed visual hallucinations, and over 50% of participants endorsed REM sleep behavior disorder. Apathy, depression, and anxiety were common prodromal neuropsychiatric symptoms. The presence of 1+ core clinical features of DLB in combination with apathy, depression, or anxiety resulted in the greatest AUC (0.815; 95% CI: 0.767, 0.865) for distinguishing HC from prodromal DLB 1 year prior to diagnosis. The presence of 2+ core clinical features was also accurate in differentiating between groups (AUC = 0.806; 95% CI: 0.756, 0.855). Conclusion: A wide range of motor, neuropsychiatric and other core clinical symptoms are common in prodromal DLB. A combination of core clinical features, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive impairment can accurately differentiate DLB from normal aging prior to dementia onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the specificity of both individual PVTs and three different PVT batteries in individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for dementia in order to establish both appropriate individual test cutoffs and multiple-PVT failure criterion. Participants were 311 validly performing patients with no cognitive impairment (n = 24), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 115), mild dementia (n = 122), or moderate dementia (n = 50). Cutoffs associated with ≥90% specificity were established for 11 individual PVTs across impairment severity groups. Aggregate false positive rates according to number of PVTs failed were examined for two 4-PVT batteries and one 7-PVT battery. One-way ANOVAs with post-hoc comparisons were conducted for each PVT. Performance on 9 of 11 PVTs significantly differed according to impairment severity. PVT cutoffs achieving ≥90% specificity also generally varied by group. For PVTs previously validated in non-dementia samples, slight adjustments from established cutoffs were generally required to maintain adequate specificity in MCI and mild dementia groups, with greater modifications required in the moderate dementia group. A criterion of ≥2 PVT failures resulted in ≥90% specificity in both 4-PVT batteries across groups. In the 7-PVT battery, adequate specificity was achieved with ≥2 failures in MCI and ≥3 failures in the mild dementia group. The incorporation and interpretation of several easily assimilated multiple-PVT batteries in dementia evaluations are explored. Additionally, data regarding individual PVT performance according to cognitive impairment severity are provided to aide validity assessment of both patients undergoing dementia evaluation and examinees who are less impaired. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malingering, factitious disorder, and related somatic disorders present with unique diagnostic and treatment challenges. Reporting of symptoms that are excessive, nonexistent, or exaggerated beyond available medical evidence is a central [...]

Providing feedback to clinical patients who produce invalid neuropsychological test data presents with several potential challenges. Given the limited guidance available on the topic, neuropsychologists most likely utilize approaches that idiosyncratically incorporate professional values related to both assessment and patient care to address overarching feedback goals. The current article discusses professional values believed to inform feedback decisions and presents survey results regarding how neuropsychologists would approach feedback across various clinical scenarios where testing is invalid. Participants were 209 adult-focused clinical neuropsychologists recruited via professional listservs, the majority of whom reported being board certified. Respondents were provided three case vignettes of clinical patients who produced invalid test data and were asked how they would provide feedback to each patient. Open-ended responses were coded to determine the relative frequency of feedback approaches, explicit statements, and implied goals. Nearly all respondents (98%) indicated that feedback would include some description of the invalid findings, and most respondents indicated that they would provide explanations for the reasons of invalidity (67%) and statements regarding the impact of invalidity on test interpretation (75%). There was little agreement across respondents, however, regarding specific feedback approach. Feedback goals included to Inform, Investigate, Treat, Educate, and Correct, with the presence of these implied goals also varying across respondents. The findings indicate that there is minimal consensus regarding feedback approaches provided to patients who produce invalid test data and underscore a need for further development and validation of specific feedback methods. The results are discussed within the context of the potentially competing professional values of evidence-based assessment, patient-doctor collaboration, and aspirational principles of beneficence and fidelity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To increase sensitivity of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), adjustments have been proposed, including adding consistency indices. The Invalid Forgetting Frequency Index (IFFI) is the most recently developed consistency index. While strong classification accuracy rates were originally reported, it currently lacks cross-validation. Method A sample of 184 outpatients was utilized. Valid performers passed all criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and invalid performers failed two or more PVTs. Classification accuracy statistics were calculated. Results AUC for the IFFI was 0.80, demonstrating adequate discrimination between valid and invalid groups. A score of 3 or more inconsistent responses resulted in sensitivity and specificity rates of 63% and 92%, respectively. Conclusions This is the first article to cross-validate the IFFI. In both the original IFFI study and the current study, the same cut-off was found to maintain at least 90% specificity while producing higher sensitivity rates than those achieved by traditional TOMM indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to examine traditional and alternative cutoffs across Trial 1, Trial 2, and Retention. Method: Search criteria identified 539 articles published from 1997 to 2017. After application of selection criteria, 60 articles were retained for meta-analysis. Classification accuracy statistics were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Results: For Trial 1, a cutoff of <42 was found to result in the highest sensitivity value (0.59–0.70) when maintaining specificity at ≥0.90. Traditional cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96–0.98) and moderately sensitive (0.46–0.56) when considering all available studies and only neurocognitive/psychiatric samples classified by known-groups design. For both trials, a modified cutoff of <49 allowed for improved sensitivity (0.59–0.70) while maintaining adequate specificity (0.91–0.97). A supplementary review revealed that traditional TOMM cutoffs produced >0.90 specificity across most samples of examinees for whom English is not the primary language, but well-below acceptable levels in individuals with dementia. Conclusions: The TOMM is highly specific when interpreted per traditional cutoffs. In individuals not suspected of significant impairment, findings indicate that a less conservative TOMM Trial 2 or Retention cutoff of <49 can be interpreted as invalid, especially in settings associated with higher base rates of invalidity and, thus, higher positive predictive power. A cutoff of <42 on Trial 1 can also be interpreted as invalid in most settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated whether indices within the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised (BVMT-R) could function as embedded performance validity measures in an outpatient clinical sample. Method: A sample of 138 neuropsychological outpatients was utilized; approximately 45% had a known or suspected external incentive. Patients were determined to be valid performers if they passed all criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and determined to be invalid performers if they failed two or more PVTs. BVMT-R indices met criteria for optimal embedded PVTs if they were not significantly correlated with genuine cognitive dysfunction and if they adequately differentiated the validly from invalidly performing patient groups. Classification accuracy statistics for the indices were then calculated. Supplementary analyses were also calculated for a separate dementia sample. Results: Recognition Hits and Recognition Discrimination were identified as two optimal embedded PVTs for patients without dementia. Recognition Hits showed a sensitivity rate of 41% and a specificity rate of 95%. Recognition Discrimination showed a sensitivity rate of 54% and a specificity rate of 93%. Conclusion: Embedded BVMT-R PVTs are discussed in relation to previous research findings, which were obtained from veteran samples. Recognition Hits and Recognition Discrimination are now validated in a non-veteran clinical sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropsychologists provide detailed assessments of cognitive and emotional functioning that often cannot be obtained through other diagnostic means. They use standardized assessment tools and integrate the findings with other data to determine whether cognitive decline has occurred, to differentiate neurologic from psychiatric conditions, to identify neurocognitive etiologies, and to determine the relationship between neurologic factors and difficulties in daily functioning. Family physicians should consider referring patients when there are questions about diagnostic decision making or planning of individualized management strategies for patients with mild cognitive impairment, dementia, traumatic brain injury, and other clinical conditions that affect cognitive functioning. Neuropsychological testing can differentiate Alzheimer dementia from nondementia with nearly 90% accuracy. The addition of neuropsychological testing to injury severity variables (e.g., posttraumatic amnesia) increases predicted accuracy in functional outcomes. A neuropsychological evaluation can be helpful in addressing concerns about functional capacities (e.g., ability to drive or live independently) and in determining a patient's capacity to make decisions about health care or finances. Most patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluation and their significant others reported that they found the evaluation helpful in understanding and coping with cognitive problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Neuropsychologists play an important role on multidisciplinary teams with physicians from multiple specialties. The extent of residency training on the use of neuropsychological services is unclear. Medical residents across multiple specialties throughout the United States were surveyed to assess resident education, training, and understanding of neuropsychological services, along with their intent to consult neuropsychologists in the future., Methods: A survey was sent to residents in accredited psychiatry, neurology, family medicine, and internal medicine programs. After data were collected, chi-square group level analyses with post-hoc pairwise comparisons were used to analyze the data., Results: A total of 434 residents took the survey. The proportion of residents exposed to neuropsychology during residency varied significantly according to specialty (χ 2 (3, N = 419) = 51.4, p < 0.001), with more psychiatry and neurology residents reporting exposure than residents in family medicine or internal medicine. Similarly, the proportion of psychiatry and neurology residents who 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that they understand the nature of neuropsychological services differed significantly from family medicine and internal medicine residents (χ 2 (3, N = 415) = 40.4, p < 0.001). The majority of residents across all specialties (85.7%) reported they are likely to consult/order neuropsychological services in future practice., Conclusions: The majority of residents in all specialties reported exposure to neuropsychological services in some manner, but forms of exposure varied. Results indicated a need for increased education and training in neuropsychological services, especially within family medicine and internal medicine programs., (© 2021 The University of Kansas Medical Center.)

Objective: The current study investigated expert beliefs and practices as they relate to neuropsychological validity testing., Methods: North American neuropsychologists with expertise in neuropsychological validity testing (n = 24) were surveyed on numerous items related to validity testing. Results were analyzed and compared to findings from a prior expert survey and a recent survey of a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners., Results: Responses varied among experts on some items, indicating that experts have differences of opinion and practice regarding certain validity testing topics. However, expert opinion converged on a number of topics central to validity testing, particularly those highlighting the need for and importance of validity testing in neuropsychological assessment. Notably, expert responses on these topics often agreed with responses obtained from a prior expert sample and a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners., Conclusions: The results allow practitioners to see the range of validity testing beliefs and practices among current experts. Especially in those areas where consensus emerged, the results provide a way for practitioners to determine if their practices are consistent with those of their expert colleagues.