Literature DB >> 18821138

Interpreting the meaning of multiple symptom validity test failure.

Tara L Victor1, Kyle B Boone, J Greg Serpa, Jody Buehler, Elizabeth A Ziegler.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 18821138     DOI: 10.1080/13854040802232682

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol        ISSN: 1385-4046            Impact factor:   3.535


  8 in total

Review 1.  Test validity and performance validity: considerations in providing a framework for development of an ability-focused neuropsychological test battery.

Authors:  Glenn J Larrabee
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  The dangers of failing one or more performance validity tests in individuals claiming mild traumatic brain injury-related postconcussive symptoms.

Authors:  Daniel A Proto; Nicholas J Pastorek; Brian I Miller; Jennifer M Romesser; Anita H Sim; John F Linck
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.813

Review 3.  Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A Systematic Review and Cross-Validation Study.

Authors:  Zachary J Resch; Troy A Webber; Matthew T Bernstein; Tasha Rhoads; Gabriel P Ovsiew; Jason R Soble
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 7.444

4.  Cumulative false positive rates given multiple performance validity tests: commentary on Davis and Millis (2014) and Larrabee (2014).

Authors:  Robert M Bilder; Catherine A Sugar; Gerhard S Hellemann
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.535

5.  Performance validity in older adults: Observed versus predicted false positive rates in relation to number of tests administered.

Authors:  Jeremy J Davis
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2018-05-20       Impact factor: 2.475

6.  The subcortical basis of outcome and cognitive impairment in TBI: A longitudinal cohort study.

Authors:  Evan S Lutkenhoff; Matthew J Wright; Vikesh Shrestha; Courtney Real; David L McArthur; Manuel Buitrago-Blanco; Paul M Vespa; Martin M Monti
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 9.910

7.  Validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale of scales in a mixed clinical sample.

Authors:  Kaley Boress; Owen J Gaasedelen; Anna Croghan; Marcie King Johnson; Kristen Caraher; Michael R Basso; Douglas M Whiteside
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 4.373

8.  Replication and cross-validation of the personality assessment inventory (PAI) cognitive bias scale (CBS) in a mixed clinical sample.

Authors:  Kaley Boress; Owen J Gaasedelen; Anna Croghan; Marcie King Johnson; Kristen Caraher; Michael R Basso; Douglas M Whiteside
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 4.373

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.