TOMM Trial 1 as a performance validity indicator in a criminal forensic sample

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L. Fazio ◽  
John H. Denning ◽  
Robert L. Denney
Keyword(s):  
Performance Validity ◽  
Forensic Sample ◽  
A Performance

scholarly journals Illness Perceptions Predict Cognitive Performance Validity

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 735-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
George K. Henry ◽  
Robert L. Heilbronner ◽  
Julie Suhr ◽  
Jeffrey Gornbein ◽  
Eveleigh Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Illness Perceptions ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Effort ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Psychological Variables ◽  
Word Memory Test ◽  
Word Memory ◽  
Forensic Sample

AbstractObjectives:The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of psychological variables to cognitive performance validity test (PVT) results in mixed forensic and nonforensic clinical samples.Methods:Participants included 183 adults who underwent comprehensive neuropsychological examination. Criterion groups were formed, that is, Credible Group or Noncredible Group, based upon their performance on the Word Memory Test and other stand-alone and embedded PVT measures.Results:Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified three significant predictors of cognitive performance validity. These included two psychological constructs, for example, Cogniphobia (perception that cognitive effort will exacerbate neurological symptoms), and Symptom Identity (perception that current symptoms are the result of illness or injury), and one contextual factor (forensic). While there was no interaction between these factors, elevated scores were most often observed in the forensic sample, suggesting that these independently contributing intrinsic psychological factors are more likely to occur in a forensic environment.Conclusions:Illness perceptions were significant predictors of cognitive performance validity particularly when they reached very elevated levels. Extreme elevations were more common among participants in the forensic sample, and potential reasons for this pattern are explored. (JINS, 2018,24, 1–11)

A-112 Examining the Utility of the New Dot Counting Test Cut-off Score in Latinx and Traumatic Brain Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1161-1161
Author(s):  
Sarah Saravia ◽  
Daniel W Lopez-Hernandez ◽  
Abril J Baez ◽  
Isabel Muñoz ◽  
Winter Olmos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Future Work ◽  
A Performance

Abstract Objective The Dot Counting Test (DCT) is a performance validity test. McCaul et al. (2018) recently revised the DCT cut-off score from ≥17 to 13.80; we evaluated the new cut-off in non-Latinx Caucasian and Caucasian Latinx traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors and healthy comparison (HC) participants. Method The sample consisted of 37 acute TBI (ATBI; 11 Caucasian Latinx; 26 non-Latinx Caucasian), 27 chronic TBI (CTBI; 10 Caucasian Latinx; 17 non-Latinx Caucasian), and 55 HC (29 Caucasian Latinx; 26 non-Latinx Caucasian) participants. Results An ANCOVA, controlling for age, revealed no DCT E-scores differences between groups. Both the conventional and the new cut-off scores had different failure rates in ATBI (conventional cut-off: 0%; PNC: 16%), CTBI (conventional cut-off: 7%; PNC: 15%), and HC (conventional cut-off: 10%; PNC: 11%) participants. For the Caucasian Latinx group (conventional cut-off: 6%; PNC: 12%) and the non-Latinx Caucasian group (conventional cut-off: 6%; PNC: 14%), demonstrated different failure rates across cut-off scores. Group differences were found with the McCaul et al. (2018) cut-off and the conventional cut-off. Also, chi-squared analysis revealed non-Latinx Caucasian participants with ATBI had greater failure rates than Caucasian Latinx participants with ATBI. Conclusion The new DCT cut-off score resulted in greater failure rates in TBI survivors. Also, this effect appears to be most pronounced in non-Latinx Caucasian persons with ATBI. Future work should investigate possible reasons for these differences so that more stringent DCT can be utilized in a way that provides less biased results for brain injury survivors across racial and ethnic groups.

Number of impaired scores as a performance validity indicator

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy J. Davis ◽  
Bradley N. Axelrod ◽  
Tara S. McHugh ◽  
Robin A. Hanks ◽  
Scott R. Millis
Keyword(s):  
Performance Validity ◽  
A Performance

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document