Symptom and Performance Validity Assessment in European Countries: an Update

Abstract Objective This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of a multivariate model of performance validity assessment using embedded validity indicators (EVIs) within the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Method Archival data were collected from 100 adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) consecutively referred for neuropsychological assessment in a clinical setting. The classification accuracy of previously published individual EVIs nested within the WAIS-IV and a composite measure based on six independent EVIs were evaluated against psychometrically defined non-credible performance. Results Univariate validity cutoffs based on age-corrected scaled scores on Coding, Symbol Search, Digit Span, Letter-Number-Sequencing, Vocabulary minus Digit Span, and Coding minus Symbol Search were strong predictors of psychometrically defined non-credible responding. Failing ≥3 of these six EVIs at the liberal cutoff improved specificity (.91–.95) over univariate cutoffs (.78–.93). Conversely, failing ≥2 EVIs at the more conservative cutoff increased and stabilized sensitivity (.43–.67) compared to univariate cutoffs (.11–.63) while maintaining consistently high specificity (.93–.95). Conclusions In addition to being a widely used test of cognitive functioning, the WAIS-IV can also function as a measure of performance validity. Consistent with previous research, combining information from multiple EVIs enhanced the classification accuracy of individual cutoffs and provided more stable parameter estimates. If the current findings are replicated in larger, diagnostically and demographically heterogeneous samples, the WAIS-IV has the potential to become a powerful multivariate model of performance validity assessment. Brief Summary Using a combination of multiple performance validity indicators embedded within the subtests of theWechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the credibility of the response set can be establishedwith a high level of confidence. Multivariatemodels improve classification accuracy over individual tests. Relying on existing test data is a cost-effective approach to performance validity assessment.

Download Full-text

Concordance Between Standard and Abbreviated Administrations of the Test of Memory Malingering: Implications for Streamlining Performance Validity Assessment

Psychological Injury and Law ◽

10.1007/s12207-021-09408-y ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Gabriel P. Ovsiew ◽

Dustin A. Carter ◽

Tasha Rhoads ◽

Zachary J. Resch ◽

Kyle J. Jennette ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Performance Validity ◽

Test Of Memory Malingering ◽

Validity Assessment ◽

Performance Validity Assessment

Download Full-text

A-113 Evaluation of a Recognition Trial for the Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a Performance Validity Measure in Monolingual and Bilingual Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology ◽

10.1093/arclin/acab062.131 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 36 (6) ◽

pp. 1162-1162

Author(s):

Isabel Munoz ◽

Daniel W Lopez-Hernandez ◽

Rachel A Rugh-Fraser ◽

Amy Bichlmeier ◽

Abril J Baez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Brain Injury ◽

Failure Rates ◽

Performance Validity ◽

Validity Assessment ◽

Chi Squared ◽

Bilingual Group ◽

Performance Validity Assessment ◽

Validity Measure ◽

A Performance

Abstract Objective Research shows that traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients perform worse than healthy comparisons (HC) on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). We evaluated cut-off scores for a newly developed recognition trial of the SDMT as a performance validity assessment in monolingual and bilingual TBI survivors and HC adults. Method The sample consisted of 43 acute TBI (ATBI; 24 monolinguals; 19 bilinguals), 32 chronic TBI (CTBI; 13 monolinguals; 19 bilinguals), and 57 HC (24 monolinguals; 33 bilinguals) participants. All participants received standardized administration of the SDMT. None of the participants displayed motivation for feigning cognitive deficits. Results The HC group outperformed both TBI groups on the demographically adjusted SDMT scores, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.24. An interaction emerged in SDMT scores where monolingual ATBI outperformed bilingual ATBI and bilingual CTBI outperformed monolingual CTBI, p = 0.017, ηp2 = 0.06. No differences were found in the SDMT recognition trial. Both Bichlmeier and Boone’s suggested cut-off scores had different failure rates in ATBI (Bichlmeier: 77%; Boone: 37%), CTBI (Bichlmeier: 69%; Boone: 19%), and HC (Bichlmeier: 56%; Boone: 26%). For the monolingual group (Bichlmeier: 66%; Boone: 36%) and the bilingual group (Bichlmeier: 66%; Boone: 21%). Finally, chi-squared analysis revealed monolingual TBI had greater failure rates than the bilingual ATBI. Conclusion Bichlmeier’s proposed cut-off score resulted in greater failure rates in TBI survivors compared to Boone’s suggested cut-off score. Furthermore, monolingual ATBI were influenced more by Bichlmeier’s cut-off score than the bilingual ATBI group, although the reason for this finding is unclear and requires additional study with a larger sample size.

Download Full-text