Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A Systematic Review and Cross-Validation Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary J. Resch ◽  
Troy A. Webber ◽  
Matthew T. Bernstein ◽  
Tasha Rhoads ◽  
Gabriel P. Ovsiew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Victoria Symptom Validity Test ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-224
Author(s):  
Ruth T. Morin ◽  
Bradley N. Axelrod ◽  
Summar Reslan ◽  
Christian Schutte
Keyword(s):  
Validation Study ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Victoria Symptom Validity Test Performance in a Heterogenous Clinical Sample

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 522-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Loring ◽  
Glenn J. Larrabee ◽  
Gregory P. Lee ◽  
Kimford J. Meador
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Victoria Symptom Validity Test ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Reliable Digit Span

Assessment ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan W. Schroeder ◽  
Philip Twumasi-Ankrah ◽  
Lyle E. Baade ◽  
Paul S. Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cerebrovascular Accident ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Memory Disorders ◽  
Borderline Intellectual Functioning ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a heavily researched symptom validity test with a recent literature review yielding more than 20 studies ranging in dates from 1994 to 2011. Unfortunately, limitations within some of the research minimize clinical generalizability. This systematic review and cross-validation study was conducted to address these limitations, thus increasing the measure’s clinical utility. Sensitivity and specificity rates were calculated for the ≤6 and ≤7 cutoffs when data were globally combined and divided by clinical groups. The cross-validation of specific diagnostic groups was consistent with the data reported in the literature. Overall, caution should be used when utilizing the ≤7 cutoff in all clinical groups and when utilizing the ≤6 cutoff in the following groups: cerebrovascular accident, severe memory disorders, mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and English as a second language. Additional limitations and cautions are provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document