Literature DB >> 33829824

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Anna S Ord1, Robert D Shura2, Ashley R Sansone3, Sarah L Martindale2, Katherine H Taber2, Jared A Rowland2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among performance validity, symptom validity, symptom self-report, and objective cognitive testing.
METHOD: Combat Veterans (N = 338) completed a neurocognitive assessment battery and several self-report symptom measures assessing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, sleep quality, pain interference, and neurobehavioral complaints. All participants also completed two performance validity tests (PVTs) and one stand-alone symptom validity test (SVT) along with two embedded SVTs.
RESULTS: Results of an exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution: performance validity, cognitive performance, and symptom report (SVTs loaded on the third factor). Results of t tests demonstrated that participants who failed PVTs displayed significantly more severe symptoms and significantly worse performance on most measures of neurocognitive functioning compared to those who passed. Participants who failed a stand-alone SVT also reported significantly more severe symptomatology on all symptom report measures, but the pattern of cognitive performance differed based on the selected SVT cutoff. Multiple linear regressions revealed that both SVT and PVT failure explained unique variance in symptom report, but only PVT failure significantly predicted cognitive performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance and symptom validity tests measure distinct but related constructs. SVTs and PVTs are significantly related to both cognitive performance and symptom report; however, the relationship between symptom validity and symptom report is strongest. SVTs are also differentially related to cognitive performance and symptom report based on the utilized cutoff score. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33829824      PMCID: PMC8405123          DOI: 10.1037/neu0000722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychology        ISSN: 0894-4105            Impact factor:   3.295


  40 in total

1.  The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation.

Authors:  Christy A Blevins; Frank W Weathers; Margaret T Davis; Tracy K Witte; Jessica L Domino
Journal:  J Trauma Stress       Date:  2015-11-25

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

Authors:  Kyle Brauer Boone
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 3.535

3.  Utility of the response bias scale (RBS) and other MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting TOMM performance.

Authors:  Kriscinda A Whitney; Jeremy J Davis; Polly H Shepard; Steven M Herman
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2008-10-17       Impact factor: 2.813

4.  American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.

Authors:  Robert L Heilbronner; Jerry J Sweet; Joel E Morgan; Glenn J Larrabee; Scott R Millis
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 3.535

5.  Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS).

Authors:  G P Smith; G K Burger
Journal:  J Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1997

6.  Does True Neurocognitive Dysfunction Contribute to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2nd Edition-Restructured Form Cognitive Validity Scale Scores?

Authors:  Phillip K Martin; Ryan W Schroeder; Robin J Heinrichs; Lyle E Baade
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2015-06-07       Impact factor: 2.813

7.  Patterns of MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scale scores observed across Veteran Affairs settings.

Authors:  Paul B Ingram; Anthony M Tarescavage; Yossef S Ben-Porath; Mary E Oehlert
Journal:  Psychol Serv       Date:  2019-02-28

8.  Effort has a greater effect on test scores than severe brain injury in compensation claimants.

Authors:  P Green; M L Rohling; P R Lees-Haley; L M Allen
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference.

Authors:  Dagmar Amtmann; Karon F Cook; Mark P Jensen; Wen-Hung Chen; Seung Choi; Dennis Revicki; David Cella; Nan Rothrock; Francis Keefe; Leigh Callahan; Jin-Shei Lai
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Cross validation of the b Test in a large known groups sample.

Authors:  Cedria J Roberson; Kyle Brauer Boone; Hope Goldberg; Deborah Miora; Maria Cottingham; Tara Victor; Elizabeth Ziegler; Michelle Zeller; Matthew Wright
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 3.535

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.