Literature DB >> 33821424

Response Time Measures as Supplementary Validity Indicators in Forced-Choice Recognition Memory Performance Validity Tests: A Systematic Review.

Yoram Braw1.   

Abstract

Performance validity tests (PVTs) based on the forced-choice recognition memory (FCRM) paradigm are commonly used for the detection of noncredible performance. Examinees' response times (RTs) are affected by cognitive processes associated with deception and can also be gathered without lengthening the duration of the assessment. Consequently, interest in the utility of these measures as supplementary validity indicators in FCRM-PVTs has grown over the years. The current systematic review summarizes both clinical and simulation (i.e., healthy participants simulating cognitive impairment) studies of RTs in FCRM-PVTs. The findings of 25 peer-reviewed articles (n = 26 empirical studies) indicate that noncredible performance in FCRM-PVTs is associated with longer RTs. Additionally, there are indications that noncredible performance is associated with larger variability in RTs. RT measures, however, have lower discrimination capacity than conventional accuracy measures. Their utility may therefore lie in reaching decisions regarding cases with border zone accuracy scores, as well as aiding in the detection of more sophisticated examinees who are aware of the use of accuracy-based validity indicators in FCRM-PVTs. More research, however, is required before these measures are incorporated in daily practice and clinical decision-making processes.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Feigned cognitive impairment; Forced-choice recognition memory; Neuropsychological assessment; Noncredible performance; Response time; Validity tests

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33821424     DOI: 10.1007/s11065-021-09499-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev        ISSN: 1040-7308            Impact factor:   7.444


  37 in total

Review 1.  Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity NAN policy & planning committee.

Authors:  Shane S Bush; Ronald M Ruff; Alexander I Tröster; Jeffrey T Barth; Sandra P Koffler; Neil H Pliskin; Cecil R Reynolds; Cheryl H Silver
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  Performance of compensation seeking and non-compensation seeking samples on the Victoria symptom validity test: cross-validation and extension of a standardization study.

Authors:  C L Grote; E K Kooker; D C Garron; D L Nyenhuis; C A Smith; M L Mattingly
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.475

3.  Relationships among victoria symptom validity test indices and personality assessment inventory validity scales in a large clinical sample.

Authors:  Kathryn A Haggerty; Thomas W Frazier; Robyn M Busch; Richard I Naugle
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.535

4.  Neuropsychologists' ability to predict distorted symptom presentation.

Authors:  Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Harald Merckelbach; Rudolf W H M Ponds
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.475

5.  Performance validity and processing speed in a VA Polytrauma sample.

Authors:  Lee Ashendorf; Erika L Clark; Michael A Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.535

6.  Validation of the computerized assessment of response bias in litigating patients with head injuries.

Authors:  P Green; G L Iverson
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.535

Review 7.  Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure.

Authors:  Naomi P Friedman; Akira Miyake
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 8.  Going beyond the mean: Intraindividual variability of cognitive performance in prodromal and early neurodegenerative disorders.

Authors:  Ana Sofia Costa; Imis Dogan; Jörg B Schulz; Kathrin Reetz
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 3.535

Review 9.  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 10.  Marrying Past and Present Neuropsychology: Is the Future of the Process-Based Approach Technology-Based?

Authors:  Unai Diaz-Orueta; Alberto Blanco-Campal; Melissa Lamar; David J Libon; Teresa Burke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-03-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.