Literature DB >> 18949583

The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations.

Kyle Brauer Boone1.   

Abstract

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18949583     DOI: 10.1080/13854040802427803

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


  8 in total

1.  RBANS Validity Indices: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Robert D Shura; Timothy W Brearly; Jared A Rowland; Sarah L Martindale; Holly M Miskey; Kevin Duff
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 7.444

2.  Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.

Authors:  Russell M Bauer; Grant L Iverson; Alison N Cernich; Laurence M Binder; Ronald M Ruff; Richard I Naugle
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.813

3.  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

4.  Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.

Authors:  Russell M Bauer; Grant L Iverson; Alison N Cernich; Laurence M Binder; Ronald M Ruff; Richard I Naugle
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-03-07       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.  Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Authors:  Anna S Ord; Robert D Shura; Ashley R Sansone; Sarah L Martindale; Katherine H Taber; Jared A Rowland
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Erin D Bigler
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 8.  Future Directions in Performance Validity Assessment to Optimize Detection of Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance: Special Issue Introduction.

Authors:  Jason R Soble
Journal:  Psychol Inj Law       Date:  2021-09-22
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.