scholarly journals A-13 Demographic Differences in Performance Validity Test Failures

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 786-786
Author(s):  
S Braun ◽  
S Fountain-Zaragoza ◽  
C Halliday ◽  
M Horner
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Demographic Differences ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Male Veterans ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Symptom Validity Test ◽  
American Black ◽  
Logistic Regressions ◽  
Neuropsychological Evaluations

Abstract Objective The present study aimed to investigate demographic differences in performance validity test (PVT) failure in a Veteran sample. Method Data were extracted retrospectively from neuropsychological evaluations at a southeastern Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center. Only male Veterans who were either European American/White (EA) or African American/Black (AA), and for whom complete data were available were included in the study (N = 1271). We investigated whether performance on two frequently used PVTs, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), significantly differed by age, education, race, and VA service connection using separate logistic regressions. Results Veterans with younger age, less education, and VA service-connected disability were significantly more likely to fail both PVTs. Race was not a significant predictor of MSVT failure, but AA patients were significantly more likely than EA patients to fail the TOMM. For all significant demographic predictors in the models, effects were small. In a subsample of patients who were given both PVTs (n = 467), the pattern of differences based on race remained; 46% of AA patients and 36% of EA patients failed the TOMM, while 44% of AA patients and 43% of EA patients failed the MSVT. Conclusions Performance on the TOMM and MSVT systematically differed based on demographics. Results were not consistent across PVTs, with performance on the TOMM differing between EA and AA patients, but performance on the MSVT did not differ by race. These results suggest that demographic factors may play a small but measurable role in performance on specific PVTs.

Demographic differences in performance validity test failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sarah Ellen Braun ◽  
Stephanie Fountain-Zaragoza ◽  
Colleen A. Halliday ◽  
Michael David Horner
Keyword(s):  
Performance Validity ◽  
Demographic Differences ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Test Failure

scholarly journals A-219 Cross-validation of a Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Color Word Interference Test embedded performance validity test

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1014-1014
Author(s):  
Schroeder R ◽  
Clark H ◽  
Martin P
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Color Word ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Function System ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Interference Test ◽  
Neuropsychological Evaluations

Abstract Objective Eglit and colleagues (2019) found that the sum of the four age-corrected scaled scores from the Color Word Interference Test (CWIT) of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) could act as a useful embedded performance validity test (PVT). As such, we attempted to cross-validate their findings. Method Patients included 312 individuals who completed neuropsychological evaluations. Individuals were excluded if they were not administered CWIT, were not administered at least 4 criterion PVTs, had diagnoses of dementia or intellectual disability, or had indeterminate validity results (i.e., failure of one PVT). Valid performers (n = 231) were those who passed all criterion PVTs while invalid performers (n = 81) failed two or more criterion PVTs. A receiver operating characteristic curve was conducted for the CWIT embedded PVT. Results Area under the curve (AUC) was .804. At a cutoff of < 26, specificity was 90% and sensitivity was 48%. At a cutoff of < 20 (the first cutoff at which 90% specificity was found by Eglit et al.), specificity was 95% and sensitivity was 32%. At an even more conservative cutoff of < 18 (the cutoff recommended by Eglit et al.), specificity was 96% and sensitivity was 22%. Conclusions These results cross-validate Eglit et al.’s findings, indicating that the sum of age-corrected scaled scores across the four CWIT trials can effectively serve as an embedded PVT. A more liberal cutoff was able to be applied in our sample but, even at conservative cutoffs documented in Eglit et al., sensitivity rates were adequate enough to warrant use of the index as an embedded PVT.

A-183 Base Rates of Performance and Symptom Validity Test Failures in Active Duty and Veteran Samples Referred for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1238-1238
Author(s):  
Robert D Shura ◽  
Patrick Armistead-Jehle ◽  
Douglas B Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Active Duty ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Base Rates ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Abstract Objective To evaluate base rates of abnormal MMPI-2-RF symptom validity test (SVT) and stand-alone performance validity test (PVT) scores in active duty (ad) service member and Veterans Affairs clinical samples referred for neuropsychological assessment of ADHD. Method MMPI-2-RF SVT scores and various PVTs were evaluated in two samples referred specifically for assessment of ADHD: service members (N = 82) and Veterans (N = 355). SVT and PVT outcomes were then compared to published data establishing invalid base rates in larger, more general samples. Results Elevated MMPI-2-RF overreport scales (F-r ≥ 79; FS, RBS, and FBS-r ≥ 80; & Fp-r ≥ 70) ranged from 14.6% (FBS-r) to 40.0% (RBS) in the ad sample and 12.0% (FBS-r) and 28.9% (RBS) in the veteran sample. MMPI-2-RF profiles that were invalidated due to overreport (e.g., F-r = 120, all others ≥100) were under 5% on the veteran sample and no greater than 6.1% in the ad sample. Elevations on underreport scales were higher in the veteran sample (L-r = 12.9%, K-r = 2.0%) than the ad sample (L-r = 3.7%, K-r = 1.2%). In the ad sample, 21.5% failed one PVT and 6.3% failed two. In the Veteran sample, 23.4% failed one PVT. Conclusions Elevated MMPI-2-RF overreport scales were relatively common on ad and Veterans referred for ADHD evaluations. However, frequencies of elevated and invalidated scales were diminished relative to overall base rates reported in national data. Regarding PVT failure, both samples were lower than national average invalid rates. Despite the incentive inherent in ADHD exams, invalidity in both samples were consistently lower for both SVTs and PVTs.

Patterns of Performance and Symptom Validity Test Findings After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacobus Donders ◽  
Nathan Lefebre ◽  
Rachael Goldsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Compensation Seeking ◽  
Group A ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the presence of demographic, injury and neuropsychological correlates of distinct patterns of performance validity test and symptom validity test results in persons with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Method One hundred and seventy-eight persons with mTBI completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; performance validity) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; symptom validity) within 1–12 months postinjury. Four groups were compared: (a) pass both TOMM and MMPI-2-RF validity criteria, (b) pass TOMM and fail MMPI-2-RF, (c) fail TOMM and pass MMPI-2-RF, and (d) fail both TOMM and MMPI-2-RF. Results Compared to Group a, participants in combined Groups b–d were more than twice as likely to be engaged in financial compensation-seeking and about four times less likely to have neuroimaging evidence of an intracranial lesion. The average performance of Group d on an independent test of verbal learning was more than 1.5 standard deviations below that of Group a. Participants in Group b were more likely to have intracranial lesions on neuroimaging than participants in Group c. Conclusion Performance and symptom validity tests provide complementary and non-redundant information in persons with mTBI. Whereas financial compensation-seeking is associated with increased risk of failure of either PVT or SVT, or both, the presence of intracranial findings on neuroimaging is associated with decreased risk of such.

A Known-Groups Validation of the Medical Symptom Validity Test and Analysis of the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112098391
Author(s):  
Zachary J. Resch ◽  
Tasha Rhoads ◽  
Gabriel P. Ovsiew ◽  
Jason R. Soble
Keyword(s):  
Memory Impairment ◽  
Functional Decline ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Cut Scores ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test

This study cross-validated the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample and examined its accuracy for identifying invalid neuropsychological performance using a known-groups design. Cross-sectional data from 129 clinical patients who completed the MSVT were examined. Validity groups were established using six, independent criterion performance validity tests, which yielded 98 patients in the valid group and 31 in the invalid group. All MSVT subtest scores were significantly lower in the invalid group (η p2=.22-.39). Using published cut-scores, sensitivities of 42% to 71% were found among the primary effort subtests, and 74% sensitivity/90% specificity was observed for the overall MSVT. Among this sample, the MSVT component validity scales produced areas under the curve of .78-.86, suggesting moderate classification accuracy. At optimal cut-scores, the MSVT primary effort validity scales demonstrated 55% to 71% sensitivity/91% to 93% specificity, with the Consistency subtest exhibiting the strongest psychometric properties. The MSVT exhibited relatively robust sensitivity and specificity, supporting its utility as a briefer freestanding performance validity test to its predecessor, the Word Memory Test. Finally, the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile appears promising for patients with Major Neurocognitive Disorder, but is cautioned against for those without significant functional decline in activities of daily living at this time.

scholarly journals The Impact of Self-Efficacy and Health Locus of Control on Performance Validity Testing

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1162-1167
Author(s):  
Patrick Armistead-Jehle ◽  
Sara M Lippa ◽  
Chad E Grills
Keyword(s):  
Locus Of Control ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Health Locus Of Control ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Validity Testing ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test ◽  
Performance Validity Testing

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.

scholarly journals A-75 Predicting neurocognitive impairment using the Green’s Medical Symptom Validity Test dementia profile formula

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 935-935
Author(s):  
E Ringdahl ◽  
R Seegmiller ◽  
J Aden ◽  
C Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Neurocognitive Impairment ◽  
Difference Score ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Neurocognitive Disorder ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Objective The Green’s Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) is a measure of performance validity and has a formula to help distinguish genuine cognitive impairment from suboptimal engagement. The current study used the MSVT “dementia profile” formula to discriminate patients with no neurocognitive disorder (no NCD), mild neurocognitive disorder (mild NCD), and major neurocognitive disorder (major NCD). Method 198 patients who were seen for comprehensive outpatient neuropsychological testing and passed all MSVT validity measures were included in the study. Specifically, participants included 103 persons with no NCD, 62 diagnosed with a mild NCD, and 33 with major NCD, who were collectively 58% male, with a mean age of 52-years-old (SD = 16.1) and mean education of 14.5 years (SD = 2.5). Results The difference score between easy and hard MSVT subtests predicted group assignment (r = .57, p < .001) and effectively differentiated the three groups (p < .001). Mean difference scores of both groups with diagnosed NCD exceeded recommended criteria suggestive of genuine cognitive impairment, with the differences score of major NCD being greater (p < .01) than the mild NCD. Group differences remained significant (p < .001) after adjusting for the effects of age and education. When the NCD groups were compared to the no diagnosis group, ROC curve analysis produced an AUC of .84, with a sensitivity of .72 and specificity of .83. Conclusions Findings from this study validate the established difference score between easy and hard subtests of the MSVT, and suggest that the difference score on a valid MSVT profile yields diagnostically relevant information pertaining to the level of an individual’s neurocognitive impairment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document