scholarly journals Motor Reaction Times as an Embedded Measure of Performance Validity: a Study with a Sample of Austrian Early Retirement Claimants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Czornik ◽  
Doris Seidl ◽  
Sophie Tavakoli ◽  
Thomas Merten ◽  
Johann Lehrner
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Motor Reaction ◽  
Intraindividual Variation ◽  
Validity Assessment ◽  
Time Parameters ◽  
Measure Of Performance ◽  
Embedded Measure

AbstractAmong embedded measures of performance validity, reaction time parameters appear to be less common. However, their potential may be underestimated. In the German-speaking countries, reaction time is often examined using the Alertness subtest of the Test of Attention Performance (TAP). Several previous studies have examined its suitability for validity assessment. The current study was conceived to examine a variety of reaction time parameters of the TAP Alertness subtest with a sample of 266 Austrian civil forensic patients. Classification results from the Word Memory Test (WMT) were used as an external indicator to distinguish between valid and invalid symptom presentations. Results demonstrated that the WMT fail group performed worse in reaction time as well as its intraindividual variation across trials when compared to the WMT pass group. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed areas under the curve of .775–.804. Logistic regression models indicated the parameter intraindividual variation of motor reaction time with warning sound as being the best predictor for invalid test performance. Suggested cut scores yielded a sensitivity of .62 and a specificity of .90, or .45 and .95, respectively, when the accepted false-positive rate was set lower. The results encourage the use of the Alertness subtest as an embedded measure of performance validity.

Validation of grooved pegboard cutoffs as an additional embedded measure of performance validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Jared S. Link ◽  
Lisa H. Lu ◽  
Patrick Armistead-Jehle ◽  
Robert A. Seegmiller
Keyword(s):  
Performance Validity ◽  
Measure Of Performance ◽  
Embedded Measure

scholarly journals Performance and Symptom Validity Assessment in Patients with Apathy and Cognitive Impairment

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald ◽  
Annelien A. Duits ◽  
Albert F.G. Leentjens ◽  
Frans R.J. Verhey ◽  
Rudolf W.H.M. Ponds
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
False Positive ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Validity Assessment ◽  
Validity Tests

AbstractObjective:Performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs) measure the credibility of the assessment results. Cognitive impairment and apathy potentially interfere with validity test performance and may thus lead to an incorrect (i.e., false-positive) classification of the patient’s scores as non-credible. The study aimed at examining the false-positive rate of three validity tests in patients with cognitive impairment and apathy.Methods:A cross-sectional, comparative study was performed in 56 patients with dementia, 41 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 41 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Two PVTs – the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Dot Counting Test (DCT) – and one SVT – the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) – were administered. Apathy was measured with the Apathy Evaluation Scale, and severity of cognitive impairment with the Mini Mental State Examination.Results:The failure rate was 13.7% for the TOMM, 23.8% for the DCT, and 12.5% for the SIMS. Of the patients with data on all three tests (n = 105), 13.5% failed one test, 2.9% failed two tests, and none failed all three. Failing the PVTs was associated with cognitive impairment, but not with apathy. Failing the SVT was related to apathy, but not to cognitive impairment.Conclusions:In patients with cognitive impairment or apathy, failing one validity test is not uncommon. Validity tests are differentially sensitive to cognitive impairment and apathy. However, the rule that at least two validity tests should be failed to identify non-credibility seemed to ensure a high percentage of correct classification of credibility.

Finger Tapping Test Performance as a Measure of Performance Validity

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 876-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley N. Axelrod ◽  
John E. Meyers ◽  
Jeremy J. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Finger Tapping ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Finger Tapping Test ◽  
Measure Of Performance

Utility of the D-KEFS Color Word Interference Test as an embedded measure of performance validity

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham M. L. Eglit ◽  
Sarah M. Jurick ◽  
Dean C. Delis ◽  
J. Vincent Filoteo ◽  
Mark W. Bondi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Color Word ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Interference Test ◽  
Measure Of Performance ◽  
Embedded Measure

scholarly journals A-224 Clinical Utility of Grooved Pegboard as an Additional Embedded Measure of Performance Validity

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1019-1019
Author(s):  
Link J ◽  
Lu L ◽  
Armistead-Jehle P ◽  
Seegmiller R
Keyword(s):  
Digit Span ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Dominant Hand ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test ◽  
Measure Of Performance ◽  
Embedded Measure

Abstract Objective Previously, the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) has shown potential as an embedded measure of performance validity (PVT) using a T-score cutoff for either hand (≤ 29) or both hands (≤ 31). This study sought to validate these cutoffs with established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT], Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]). Method Subjects (N = 190) were primarily Caucasian (85%) and male (81%). Average age and education were 41 (SD = 11.62) and 16 years (SD = 2.35), respectively. Participants were stratified as GPB “pass or fail” based on previously proposed cutoff criteria. MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were also dichotomized as pass or fail based on manual or conventional recommendations. Results Chi-Square analyses revealed significant associations between GPB “fails” for both hands and MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS (χ2 (1, n = 190) ranging from 5.80 to 15.98, Phi ranging from .18 to .29, p ranging from < .05 to < .0001). Similar findings were observed for dominant hand “fails”; however, non-dominant hand was only related to the MSVT. Sensitivity and specificity values from the GPB measures ranged from .47 to .58 and from .89 to .92, respectively. Positive and negative predictive power ranged from .38 to .45 and .93 to .94, respectively. Conclusion These data demonstrate the relative utility of the GPB as an embedded PVT. In particular, dominant and both hand cutoffs are likely to be more clinically useful in determining sub-optimal performance. However, as sensitivity is relatively low, this measure should not be employed as the sole PVT administered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document