Effort testing, performance validity, and the importance of context and consistency

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-115
Author(s):  
Simon Gerhand ◽  
Chris A. Jones ◽  
David Hacker
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 636-636
Author(s):  
N Sherry ◽  
N Ernst ◽  
J French ◽  
A P Kontos ◽  
M W Collins

Abstract Objective Neuropsychological evaluation of concussion typically includes performance validity testing to assess effort. The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of effort testing as part of initial screening for concussion rehabilitation, including determining the factors that predict effort testing and evaluate outcomes between “good effort” and “failed effort” groups. Method Records of 76 patients aged 16–66 years old (M = 40.58 years, SD = 14.18) seen for rehabilitation of non-sport concussion from 2018–2019 were reviewed. Patients completed clinical interview, neurocognitive screening (ImPACT), effort testing (Word Memory Test), vestibular/oculomotor screening (VOMS), and the post-concussion symptom scale (PCSS). A logistic regression (LR) was conducted to predict effort, with predictors including mental health history, secondary gain, work injury, days post-injury, and PCSS. A series of one-way ANOVAs evaluated outcomes from concussion rehabilitation between the good and failed effort groups. Results Failed effort occurred in 42% of cases. The LR accurately classified 81.8% of individuals, with mental health history (p = .01) and PCSS (p = .02) as the only significant predictors of effort. There were no differences in recovery time (p = .56) between effort groups, but the failed effort group took longer to return to work (p = .03). Half of individuals who failed effort were seen until discharge, and 69% of them reported no symptoms/mild symptoms at discharge. Conclusions Failure of effort testing was predicted by a history of mental health and high symptom burden. Individuals who fail effort testing at initial visit for concussion rehabilitation take longer to return to functional activity but are capable of achieving recovery with compliance and appropriate rehabilitation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1097-1097
Author(s):  
K McIntyre

Abstract Objective Effort testing with children has started to gain traction in the literature. The following case presents data from several number recall tasks similar to the Wechsler Digit Span and may expand the opportunities for embedded performance validity tests (PVTs). Method For the purpose of psychoeducational testing, a comprehensive battery of standardized neuropsychological tests was administered, including visual and auditory attention, language, visual-motor and fine motor skills, visual and auditory processing, executive functioning, and academics. Results The child showed impaired performance on Number Recall from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (KABC-II) and Memory for Digits on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd Edition (CTOPP-2) that met the Weschler Digit Span cutoff indicative of poor effort. Evidence of Ganser symptoms (e.g., nearly correct or approximate answers) was present on math calculation performance on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, 4th Edition (WJTA-IV). Further, apparently deliberate markings of “X” solely on his incorrect responses on a dichotomous (yes/no) reading task also suggested deliberate feigning of low reading skills. Conclusions This case highlights the importance of effort testing in children, especially as poor effort was not apparent to the examiner, nor did there appear to be any obvious gain. Comparing data on tasks similar to already established PVTs may help expand opportunities to test effort systematically and frequently throughout a neuropsychological evaluation, and has implications for other professionals (e.g., School Psychologists, Speech Language Pathologists, etc.) who evaluate children.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Elbin ◽  
Anthony P. Kontos ◽  
Nathan Kegel ◽  
Eric Johnson ◽  
Scott Burkhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger O. Gervais ◽  
Anthony M. Tarescavage ◽  
Manfred F. Greiffenstein ◽  
Dustin B. Wygant ◽  
Cheryl Deslauriers ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Mossman ◽  
William Miller ◽  
Elliot Lee ◽  
Roger Gervais ◽  
Kathleen Hart ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 800
Author(s):  
Harriet A. Ball ◽  
Marta Swirski ◽  
Margaret Newson ◽  
Elizabeth J. Coulthard ◽  
Catherine M. Pennington

Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) is a relatively common cause of cognitive symptoms, characterised by inconsistency between symptoms and observed or self-reported cognitive functioning. We aimed to improve the clinical characterisation of FCD, in particular its differentiation from early neurodegeneration. Two patient cohorts were recruited from a UK-based tertiary cognitive clinic, diagnosed following clinical assessment, investigation and expert multidisciplinary team review: FCD, (n = 21), and neurodegenerative Mild Cognitive Impairment (nMCI, n = 17). We separately recruited a healthy control group (n = 25). All participants completed an assessment battery including: Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), Trail Making Test Part B (TMT-B); Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2RF). In comparison to healthy controls, the FCD and nMCI groups were equally impaired on trail making, immediate recall, and recognition tasks; had equally elevated mood symptoms; showed similar aberration on a range of personality measures; and had similar difficulties on inbuilt performance validity tests. However, participants with FCD performed significantly better than nMCI on HVLT-R delayed free recall and retention (regression coefficient −10.34, p = 0.01). Mood, personality and certain cognitive abilities were similarly altered across nMCI and FCD groups. However, those with FCD displayed spared delayed recall and retention, in comparison to impaired immediate recall and recognition. This pattern, which is distinct from that seen in prodromal neurodegeneration, is a marker of internal inconsistency. Differentiating FCD from nMCI is challenging, and the identification of positive neuropsychometric features of FCD is an important contribution to this emerging area of cognitive neurology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document