A meta-analysis of the accuracy of embedded performance validity indicators from the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1044-1068 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Goette ◽  
Haley E. Goette
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
John W. Lace ◽  
Alexandra F. Grant ◽  
Karen M. Kosky ◽  
Carson L. Teague ◽  
Kimberly T. Lowell ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 936-936
Author(s):  
J Quattlebaum ◽  
P Martin ◽  
A Moltisanti ◽  
H Clark ◽  
R Schroeder

Abstract Objective The current study sought to examine the specificity of Digit Span (DS) scaled score from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) as a performance validity test (PVT) in older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or dementia. Method Archival data were utilized and included 195 patients (mean age = 72.8; mean education = 13.2) who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluations. Cases that had missing data, did not meet criteria for a neurocognitive disorder, or whose performance was deemed invalid were excluded. Participants were classified according to their evaluation diagnosis of MCI (n = 72; mean RBANS total score = 86.8) or dementia. Those diagnosed with dementia were divided by MoCA performance and categorized as mild dementia (n = 90; MoCA≥15; mean RBANS Total Score = 71.0) or moderate dementia (n = 33; MoCA < 15; mean RBANS Total Score = 55.9). Scaled score frequencies were analyzed to calculate specificity for each group. Results An RBANS DS scaled score of ≤4 occurred infrequently in older adults with MCI and mild dementia, resulting in specificity values of 0.93 and 0.90, respectively. In moderate dementia, specificity fell to 0.68 when using a scaled score of ≤4, with a cutoff of ≤2 required to maintain adequate specificity. Conclusions Findings suggest utility of RBANS DS scaled score as a PVT in dementia evaluations provided use of appropriate cutoffs. A more stringent cutoff was required in examinees with moderate dementia relative to patients with MCI and mild dementia. Future research should examine the RBANS DS sensitivity to invalid performance, as well as DS specificity across specific etiologies of MCI and dementia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1231-1231
Author(s):  
Naomi R Kaswan ◽  
Ryan C Thompson ◽  
Yelena Markiv ◽  
Aubrey Deenen ◽  
Haig V Pilavjian ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective Literature supports the use of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Trail Making Test Conditions 4/2 ratio (TMT 4/2) and Stroop Color Word Test Word Reading (WR) as embedded validity indicators (EVIs) with adults (Erdodi et al., 2018; Guise et al., 2012) and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, 2nd Edition Matrix Reasoning (MR) as an EVI with children (Sussman et al., 2017). This study assessed the utility of these measures as EVIs in healthy children, compared to the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 (TOMM1 &lt; 45; Perna & Loughan, 2013) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Method Participants (n = 99, 68.7% male, Mage = 11.9) completed baseline neuropsychological evaluations for sport participation, including the aforementioned measures. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to determine whether TMT 4/2, MR, and WR accurately categorized valid performance. Results TMT 4/2 yielded adequate sensitivity (0.83–1.00) but poor specificity (0.07–0.09) when predicting TOMM1 and RDS pass/fail performances. MR yielded adequate sensitivity (1.00) and specificity (0.92) when predicting RDS pass/fail performance and adequate specificity (0.92) and poor sensitivity (0.18) when predicting TOMM1 pass/fail performance. The only EVI that produced better than chance accuracy was MR when predicting RDS pass/fail performance (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.98). All participants failed the WR cutoff, suggesting poor specificity. Conclusion Results suggest that MR was the only EVI that achieved minimally acceptable specificity (≥0.90) in children. MR performed adequately when detecting valid performances but variably when detecting invalid performances; therefore, MR may be used alongside well-established performance validity tests with children but not independently.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document