Predictive value of performance validity testing and symptom validity testing in psychoeducational assessment

Author(s):  
Allyson G. Harrison ◽  
A. Lynne Beal ◽  
Irene T. Armstrong
2019 ◽  
pp. 201-227
Author(s):  
Karen Postal

Position papers from the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology define assessment of symptom and performance validity, using well-validated assessment tools, as a critical component of a competent neuropsychological assessment. The ability to provide information to the court about whether defendants/plaintiffs are providing accurate information about their symptoms and abilities is a unique and valuable contribution that our field brings to the forensic table. This chapter addresses strategies to assist jurors and other triers of fact in their understanding of concepts of effort and exaggeration, through evaluation of noncredible symptom patterns and performance validity and symptom validity testing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1162-1167
Author(s):  
Patrick Armistead-Jehle ◽  
Sara M Lippa ◽  
Chad E Grills

Abstract Objective Recent research has examined potential influences to performance validity testing beyond intentional feigning. The current study sought to examine the hypothesized relationships of two psychological constructs (self-efficacy and health locus of control) with performance validity testing (PVT). Method Retrospective review of 158 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) cases referred to an Army outpatient clinic for neuropsychological evaluation. The mTBI cases were classified according to passing or failing the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) or Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT). Group comparisons were performed utilizing one-way ANOVA to evaluate the differences between the PVT-Pass and PVT-Fail groups on self-efficacy (MMPI-2-RF Inefficacy scale) and locus of control (Multi-Dimensional Health Locus of Control). Results There was no relationship between self-efficacy or health locus of control and passing/failing PVTs. Conclusions Further research is warranted to explore potential influences on PVT performance, which we conceptualize as analogous to experimental nuisance variables that may be amenable to intervention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Lee H. Ensalada

Abstract Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.


1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-4

Abstract Symptom validity testing, also known as forced-choice testing, is a way to assess the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness—the common feature of which is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. Symptom validity testing comprises two elements: A specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared with the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. Scoring below a norm can be explained in many different ways (eg, fatigue, evaluation anxiety, limited intelligence, and so on), but scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deception. The positive predictive value of the symptom validity technique likely is quite high because there is no alternative explanation to deliberate distortion when performance is below the probability of chance. The sensitivity of this technique is not likely to be good because, as with a thermometer, positive findings indicate that a problem is present, but negative results do not rule out a problem. Although a compelling conclusion is that the examinee who scores below probabilities is deliberately motivated to perform poorly, malingering must be concluded from the total clinical context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document