INTRODUCTION: We used cognitive and psychometric modeling techniques to evaluate the construct validity and measurement precision of latent cognitive abilities measured by a test of concept identification learning: the Penn Conditional Exclusion Test (PCET). METHOD: Item response theory parameters were embedded within classic associative- and hypothesis-based Markov learning models and were fitted to 35,553 Army soldiers' PCET data from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS). RESULTS: Data were consistent with a hypothesis-testing model with multiple latent abilities-abstraction and set shifting. Latent abstraction ability was positively correlated with number of concepts learned, and latent set-shifting ability was negatively correlated with number of perseverative errors, supporting the construct validity of the two parameters. Abstraction was most precisely assessed for participants with abilities ranging from 1.5 standard deviations below the mean to the mean itself. Measurement of set shifting was acceptably precise only for participants making a high number of perseverative errors. CONCLUSIONS: The PCET precisely measures latent abstraction ability in the Army STARRS sample, especially within the range of mildly impaired to average ability. This precision pattern is ideal for a test developed to measure cognitive impairment as opposed to cognitive strength. The PCET also measures latent set-shifting ability, but reliable assessment is limited to the impaired range of ability, reflecting that perseverative errors are rare among cognitively healthy adults. Integrating cognitive and psychometric models can provide information about construct validity and measurement precision within a single analytical framework.
INTRODUCTION: We used cognitive and psychometric modeling techniques to evaluate the construct validity and measurement precision of latent cognitive abilities measured by a test of concept identification learning: the Penn Conditional Exclusion Test (PCET). METHOD: Item response theory parameters were embedded within classic associative- and hypothesis-based Markov learning models and were fitted to 35,553 Army soldiers' PCET data from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS). RESULTS: Data were consistent with a hypothesis-testing model with multiple latent abilities-abstraction and set shifting. Latent abstraction ability was positively correlated with number of concepts learned, and latent set-shifting ability was negatively correlated with number of perseverative errors, supporting the construct validity of the two parameters. Abstraction was most precisely assessed for participants with abilities ranging from 1.5 standard deviations below the mean to the mean itself. Measurement of set shifting was acceptably precise only for participants making a high number of perseverative errors. CONCLUSIONS: The PCET precisely measures latent abstraction ability in the Army STARRS sample, especially within the range of mildly impaired to average ability. This precision pattern is ideal for a test developed to measure cognitive impairment as opposed to cognitive strength. The PCET also measures latent set-shifting ability, but reliable assessment is limited to the impaired range of ability, reflecting that perseverative errors are rare among cognitively healthy adults. Integrating cognitive and psychometric models can provide information about construct validity and measurement precision within a single analytical framework.
Entities:
Keywords:
Army STARRS; Concept identification learning; Item response theory; Latent variable measurement; Neuropsychology; Penn Conditional Exclusion Test
Authors: Benjamin S McKenna; Gregory G Brown; Sean P A Drummond; Travis H Turner; Quintino R Mano Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Robert J Ursano; Lisa J Colpe; Steven G Heeringa; Ronald C Kessler; Michael Schoenbaum; Murray B Stein Journal: Psychiatry Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Jens Westheide; Boris B Quednow; Kai-Uwe Kuhn; Christian Hoppe; Déirdre Cooper-Mahkorn; Barbara Hawellek; Petra Eichler; Wolfgang Maier; Michael Wagner Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Michael L Thomas; Gregory G Brown; Wesley K Thompson; James Voyvodic; Douglas N Greve; Jessica A Turner; Daniel H Mathalon; Judith Ford; Cynthia G Wible; Steven G Potkin Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Michael L Thomas; Gregory G Brown; Ruben C Gur; Tyler M Moore; Virginie M Patt; Victoria B Risbrough; Dewleen G Baker Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Justin E Karr; Corson N Areshenkoff; Philippe Rast; Scott M Hofer; Grant L Iverson; Mauricio A Garcia-Barrera Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: Tyler M Moore; Ruben C Gur; Michael L Thomas; Gregory G Brown; Matthew K Nock; Adam P Savitt; John G Keilp; Steven Heeringa; Robert J Ursano; Murray B Stein Journal: Assessment Date: 2017-01-30
Authors: James A Naifeh; Holly B Herberman Mash; Murray B Stein; Carol S Fullerton; Ronald C Kessler; Robert J Ursano Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 15.992