scholarly journals A-18Can a Performance Validity Test (PVT) Measure Screen for Genuine Memory Impairment in Older Adults?

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 590.2-590
Author(s):  
J Phillips ◽  
A Ord ◽  
S Sautter ◽  
R Kintzing
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1161-1161
Author(s):  
Sarah Saravia ◽  
Daniel W Lopez-Hernandez ◽  
Abril J Baez ◽  
Isabel Muñoz ◽  
Winter Olmos ◽  
...  

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.


Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112098391
Author(s):  
Zachary J. Resch ◽  
Tasha Rhoads ◽  
Gabriel P. Ovsiew ◽  
Jason R. Soble

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L. Fazio ◽  
Allison N. Faris ◽  
Karim Z. Yamout

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document