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.

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-224 Clinical Utility of Grooved Pegboard as an Additional Embedded Measure of Performance Validity

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1019-1019
Author(s):  
Link J ◽  
Lu L ◽  
Armistead-Jehle P ◽  
Seegmiller R
Keyword(s):  
Digit Span ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Dominant Hand ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Medical Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity Test ◽  
Measure Of Performance ◽  
Embedded Measure

Abstract Objective Previously, the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) has shown potential as an embedded measure of performance validity (PVT) using a T-score cutoff for either hand (≤ 29) or both hands (≤ 31). This study sought to validate these cutoffs with established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT], Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]). Method Subjects (N = 190) were primarily Caucasian (85%) and male (81%). Average age and education were 41 (SD = 11.62) and 16 years (SD = 2.35), respectively. Participants were stratified as GPB “pass or fail” based on previously proposed cutoff criteria. MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were also dichotomized as pass or fail based on manual or conventional recommendations. Results Chi-Square analyses revealed significant associations between GPB “fails” for both hands and MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS (χ2 (1, n = 190) ranging from 5.80 to 15.98, Phi ranging from .18 to .29, p ranging from &lt; .05 to &lt; .0001). Similar findings were observed for dominant hand “fails”; however, non-dominant hand was only related to the MSVT. Sensitivity and specificity values from the GPB measures ranged from .47 to .58 and from .89 to .92, respectively. Positive and negative predictive power ranged from .38 to .45 and .93 to .94, respectively. Conclusion These data demonstrate the relative utility of the GPB as an embedded PVT. In particular, dominant and both hand cutoffs are likely to be more clinically useful in determining sub-optimal performance. However, as sensitivity is relatively low, this measure should not be employed as the sole PVT administered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document