A-184 Performance Validity Test Failure Rates in Bilingual Individuals Evaluated in English

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1239-1239
Author(s):  
Jeremy Davis ◽  
Gabrielle Hromas ◽  
Summer Rolin
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Mmse Score ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Group ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Impaired Group ◽  
Positive Threshold ◽  
Validity Tests

Abstract Objective Classification accuracy of embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) is unknown in cases involving bilingual examinees evaluated in English. This study examined false positive rates in bilingual individuals in an older adult sample. Method The project involved secondary analysis of a deidentified dataset (N = 22,688) from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC). Exclusion criteria were diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 5160) or dementia (n = 5550). The initial sample included 11,513 participants grouped as cognitively normal (89.6%) or impaired but not MCI. A subset of 275 participants was identified with a primary language other than English who were evaluated in English. Propensity score matching was conducted by diagnostic group to match bilingual to monolingual participants on age, education, gender, and MMSE score. The final sample included 450 and 100 participants in normal and impaired groups, respectively. Failure rates on five embedded PVTs in the NACC cognitive test battery were examined by language and by diagnosis. Results Age, education, gender, and MMSE score were not significantly different by language in either diagnostic group. In the normal group, 4.9% of bilingual and 2.2% of monolingual participants failed two or more PVTs (n.s.). In the impaired group, 12% of bilingual and 6% of monolingual participants failed two or more PVTs (n.s.). Conclusions PVT failure rates were not significantly different between bilingual participants evaluated in English and monolingual participants in either diagnostic group. Failure rates, however, increased slightly above a common false positive threshold of 10% in bilingual participants in the impaired group.

A-12 Racial Differences in Performance Validity Test Failure Rates

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1034-1034
Author(s):  
Jeremy Davis ◽  
Summer Rolin ◽  
Gabrielle Hromas
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Mmse Score ◽  
Diagnostic Group ◽  
Normal Group ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Impaired Group ◽  
Group Failure

Abstract Objective Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) may show increased false positive rates in racially diverse examinees. This study examined false positive rates by race in an older adult sample. Method The project involved secondary analysis of a deidentified dataset (N = 22,688) from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC). Participants were included if their identified race was African American or white. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 5160) or dementia (n = 5550). The initial sample included 11,114 participants grouped as cognitively normal (89.9%) or impaired but not MCI of whom 16.4% identified as African American. Propensity score matching was conducted by diagnostic group to match African American and white participants on age, education, gender, and MMSE score. The final sample included 3024 and 482 participants in normal and impaired groups, respectively, with 50% of participants identifying as African American in each group. Failure rates on five embedded PVTs in the NACC cognitive test battery were examined by race and by diagnosis. Results Age, education, gender, and MMSE score were not significantly different by race in either diagnostic group. In the normal group, 4.7% of African American and 1.9% of white participants failed two or more PVTs (p < 0.001). In the impaired group, 9.5% of African American and 5.8% of white participants failed two or more PVTs (n.s.). Conclusions PVT failure rates were significantly higher among African American participants in the normal group but not in the impaired group. Failure rates remained below a common false positive threshold of 10%.

Prevalence of poor effort and malingered neurocognitive dysfunction in litigating patients in Switzerland

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-116
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Plohmann ◽  
Max Hurter
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Neurocognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Education Levels ◽  
Slick Criteria ◽  
First Generation Migrants ◽  
Validity Tests

Abstract. To determine the prevalence of inauthentic cognitive test results, the data of 455 examinees who had finished at least two performance validity tests (PVTs) were analyzed retrospectively. The PVTs administered were the WMT, MSVT, NV-MSVT, ASTM, BSV, RMT, and RDS. Classification as “definite” or “probable” malingering was done according to the Slick criteria. Sociodemographic variables and diagnoses were described using binary logistic regression. Poor effort in at least two PVTs correlated significantly with education levels, immigration, and origin. Irrespective of education level, the highest risk of definite malingering was found in first-generation migrants. Cervical spine dysfunction, normal cerebral imaging, PTSD, somatoform, and/or depressive disorders also correlated with negative response bias. The probability that psychiatric patients fulfill criteria of probable malingering was higher than in patients with isolated organic mental disorders.

Limited English Proficiency Increases Failure Rates on Performance Validity Tests with High Verbal Mediation

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laszlo A. Erdodi ◽  
Shayna Nussbaum ◽  
Sanya Sagar ◽  
Christopher A. Abeare ◽  
Eben S. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Limited English Proficiency ◽  
English Proficiency ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Verbal Mediation ◽  
Validity Tests ◽  
Performance Validity Tests

scholarly journals Are Established Embedded Performance Validity Test Cut-Offs Generalizable to Patients With Multiple Sclerosis?

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 511-516
Author(s):  
Christopher H Domen ◽  
Michael R Greher ◽  
Patrick W Hosokawa ◽  
Sierra L Barnes ◽  
Brian D Hoyt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Initial Data ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Relapsing Remitting ◽  
Validity Tests ◽  
Performance Validity Tests

Abstract Objective Data for the use of embedded performance validity tests (ePVTs) with multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are limited. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether ePVTs previously validated in other neurological samples perform similarly in an MS sample. Methods In this retrospective study, the prevalence of below-criterion responding at different cut-off scores was calculated for each ePVT of interest among patients with MS who passed a stand-alone PVT. Results Previously established PVT cut-offs generally demonstrated acceptable specificity when applied to our sample. However, the overall cognitive burden of the sample was limited relative to that observed in prior large-scale MS studies. Conclusion The current study provides initial data regarding the performance of select ePVTs among an MS sample. Results indicate most previously validated cut-offs avoid excessive false positive errors in a predominantly relapsing remitting MS sample. Further validation among MS patients with more advanced disease is warranted.

A-181 Do Effortful Epilepsy Patients Fall Below Performance Validity Test Cutoffs at Higher Rates than Is Considered Acceptable?

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1236-1236
Author(s):  
Hyun Jin Kang ◽  
Michelle Kim ◽  
Karen Torres
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Test Of Memory Malingering ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
History Of ◽  
Warrington Recognition Memory Test ◽  
Validity Tests ◽  
The University ◽  
Performance Validity Tests

Abstract Objective Factors specific to an epilepsy population (e.g., medications, psychiatric comorbidities, localization) may result in higher false positive rates on performance validity tests (PVT), rendering the results more equivocal. This study examined whether specificity is reduced in effortful epilepsy patients on the Warrington Recognition Memory Test - Words (WRMT-W) and Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Method 53 epilepsy patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation through the University of Washington Regional Epilepsy Center were examined. Patients were majority male (56.6%) and Caucasian (79.2%). Average age and education were 36.1 (SD = 13.03) and 13.4 years (SD = 2.39), respectively. Patients with an intelligence quotient of <70, history of brain surgery, and those who seized during testing were excluded. Patients clinically observed to have reduced effort with 2+ PVT failures were excluded (n = 3). Frequency tables for WRMT-W and TOMM performances were utilized to examine specificity based on prior cutoffs identified for these measures. Results The WRMT-W cutoff of ≤42 was associated with 88.7% specificity. TOMM Trial 2 and Retention cutoffs of <45 were associated with 98.1% and 100% specificity, respectively. The WRMT-W cutoff was associated with 91.7% specificity in language dominant hemisphere onset epilepsy patients (n = 16). None performed below cutoffs on the TOMM. All nondominant hemisphere onset patients (n = 8) performed above WRMT-W and TOMM cutoffs. Conclusions Use of the WRMT-W and TOMM in an epilepsy population is associated with an acceptable false positive rate (specificity around 90%). However, future studies examining the sensitivity of these measures in epilepsy patients should be performed.

scholarly journals Performance validity test failure in clinical populations—a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (9) ◽  
pp. 945-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura McWhirter ◽  
Craig W Ritchie ◽  
Jon Stone ◽  
Alan Carson
Keyword(s):  
Neuropsychological Tests ◽  
Neuropsychological Testing ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Functional Disorders ◽  
Clinical Diagnoses ◽  
Validity Tests ◽  
Clinical Conditions ◽  
Performance Validity Tests ◽  
Clinical Populations

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are widely used in attempts to quantify effort and/or detect negative response bias during neuropsychological testing. However, it can be challenging to interpret the meaning of poor PVT performance in a clinical context. Compensation-seeking populations predominate in the PVT literature. We aimed to establish base rates of PVT failure in clinical populations without known external motivation to underperform. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for studies reporting PVT failure rates in adults with defined clinical diagnoses, excluding studies of active or veteran military personnel, forensic populations or studies of participants known to be litigating or seeking disability benefits. Results were summarised by diagnostic group and implications discussed. Our review identified 69 studies, and 45 different PVTs or indices, in clinical populations with intellectual disability, degenerative brain disease, brain injury, psychiatric disorders, functional disorders and epilepsy. Various pass/fail cut-off scores were described. PVT failure was common in all clinical groups described, with failure rates for some groups and tests exceeding 25%. PVT failure is common across a range of clinical conditions, even in the absence of obvious incentive to underperform. Failure rates are no higher in functional disorders than in other clinical conditions. As PVT failure indicates invalidity of other attempted neuropsychological tests, the finding of frequent and unexpected failure in a range of clinical conditions raises important questions about the degree of objectivity afforded to neuropsychological tests in clinical practice and research.

A Bayesian Approach to Mixed Group Validation of Performance Validity Tests

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Mossman ◽  
William Miller ◽  
Elliot Lee ◽  
Roger Gervais ◽  
Kathleen Hart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Approach ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Mixed Group ◽  
Validity Tests ◽  
Performance Validity Tests
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document