Eben S Schwartz1, Laszlo Erdodi2, Nicholas Rodriguez2, Jyotsna J Ghosh3, Joshua R Curtain4, Laura A Flashman3, Robert M Roth3. 1. 1Neuroscience Center,Waukesha Memorial Hospital,Waukesha,Wisconsin. 2. 2Department of Psychology,University of Windsor,Windsor ON,Canada. 3. 3Neuropsychology Program,Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth,Lebanon,New Hampshire. 4. 4Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences,Stanford Health Care,Stanford,California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) trial of the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd edition, was designed as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of classification accuracy against reference PVTs. METHODS: Results from peer-reviewed studies with FCR data published since 2002 encompassing a variety of clinical, research, and forensic samples were summarized, including 37 studies with FCR failure rates (N=7575) and 17 with concordance rates with established PVTs (N=4432). RESULTS: All healthy controls scored >14 on FCR. On average, 16.9% of the entire sample scored ≤14, while 25.9% failed reference PVTs. Presence or absence of external incentives to appear impaired (as identified by researchers) resulted in different failure rates (13.6% vs. 3.5%), as did failing or passing reference PVTs (49.0% vs. 6.4%). FCR ≤14 produced an overall classification accuracy of 72%, demonstrating higher specificity (.93) than sensitivity (.50) to invalid performance. Failure rates increased with the severity of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of serious neurocognitive disorder, FCR ≤14 is highly specific, but only moderately sensitive to invalid responding. Passing FCR does not rule out a non-credible presentation, but failing FCR rules it in with high accuracy. The heterogeneity in sample characteristics and reference PVTs, as well as the quality of the criterion measure across studies, is a major limitation of this review and the basic methodology of PVT research in general. (JINS, 2016, 22, 851-858).
OBJECTIVES: The Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) trial of the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd edition, was designed as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of classification accuracy against reference PVTs. METHODS: Results from peer-reviewed studies with FCR data published since 2002 encompassing a variety of clinical, research, and forensic samples were summarized, including 37 studies with FCR failure rates (N=7575) and 17 with concordance rates with established PVTs (N=4432). RESULTS: All healthy controls scored >14 on FCR. On average, 16.9% of the entire sample scored ≤14, while 25.9% failed reference PVTs. Presence or absence of external incentives to appear impaired (as identified by researchers) resulted in different failure rates (13.6% vs. 3.5%), as did failing or passing reference PVTs (49.0% vs. 6.4%). FCR ≤14 produced an overall classification accuracy of 72%, demonstrating higher specificity (.93) than sensitivity (.50) to invalid performance. Failure rates increased with the severity of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of serious neurocognitive disorder, FCR ≤14 is highly specific, but only moderately sensitive to invalid responding. Passing FCR does not rule out a non-credible presentation, but failing FCR rules it in with high accuracy. The heterogeneity in sample characteristics and reference PVTs, as well as the quality of the criterion measure across studies, is a major limitation of this review and the basic methodology of PVT research in general. (JINS, 2016, 22, 851-858).
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
Authors: Elisa F Ogawa; Elizabeth Leritz; Regina McGlinchey; William Milberg; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Michael R Basso; Douglas Whiteside; Dennis Combs; Steven Paul Woods; Jordan Hoffmeister; Ryan Mulligan; Peter Arnett; Eva Alden; Oliver Tobin Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Annie-Lori C Joseph; Sara M Lippa; Shannon M McNally; Katelyn M Garcia; Jacob B Leary; John Dsurney; Leighton Chan Journal: Appl Neuropsychol Adult Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 2.050
Authors: Jennifer C Sanchez-Flack; Lisa Tussing-Humphreys; Melissa Lamar; Giamilla Fantuzzi; Linda Schiffer; Lara Blumstein; Andrew McLeod; Roxanne Dakers; Desmona Strahan; Leo Restrepo; Nefertiti Oji Njideka Hemphill; Leilah Siegel; Mirjana Antonic; Marian Fitzgibbon Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2020-12-31