Symptom validity testing is a major topic in the field of neuropsychological research, but until now, few studies focus on effort testing in children. Three symptom validity tests (SVTs), the Medical Symptom Validity Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Fifteen Item Test plus several standard neuropsychological tests were administered to 73 German-language school children from 6 to 11 years. Participants were either instructed to give full effort or to follow a malingering scenario. It could be demonstrated that, except for one child, all participants with a basic reading level of grade 2 were able to pass all administered SVTs according to established cutoffs for poor effort (i.e., earned a score higher than the cutoff). For the experimental malingerers, however, it was fairly difficult to act according to the scenario throughout the session. While they scored worse in the neuropsychological tests, all but one of them failed at least one SVT. The results support the use of SVTs in childhood age. More elaborate experimental designs and studies with bona-fide patients and suspected malingerers are needed in order to evaluate both the appropriateness of available effort tests and the capabilities of children to fake poor performance.
Although symptom validity testing is an integral part of the repertory of neuropsychologists in a number of countries, this is not yet true for Germany. The German adaptations of two effort tests, the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) by Green and the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test (ASTM) by Schmand et al., were investigated with a German-language sample. An analog study was performed with 18 healthy experimental malingerers and 18 controls with a mean age of 25.4 years. The scenario contained detailed information about mild post-traumatic cognitive impairment, as well as an explicit warning against symptom exaggeration. In addition to MSVT and ASTM, the Trail Making Test (TMT), the Complex Figure Test (CFT), and Digit Span were performed. Half of the sample were also given Rey's 15-Item-Test (FIT). Both groups were significantly different in all effort and performance measures, with the exception of the ratio TMT-B:TMT-A. With MSVT and ASTM, correct classification of group membership was between 97 and 100%. For the ratio TMT-B:TMT-A, there was a considerable overlap in the test scores for the two groups and the sensitivity of the FIT was too low. Although the ASTM and the MSVT were identified by a number of subjects as possible effort measures, both tests obtained very good results within this analog design.
The Rey Complex Figure Test is a neuropsychological instrument that can be employed in different cultural backgrounds. Meyers and Meyers (1995) proposed an extended test version including a Recognition Trial (RT), which permits an examination of test motivation through analyses of test profiles and rare recognition mistakes. In the present study, data from a full-effort group (clinical patients) and an insufficient-effort group (forensic patients) was analyzed. For both samples, a double gold standard was set for group membership. It was found that, on the average, both groups obtained similar results on the Immediate and Delayed Recall Trials, but they differed significantly on the Copy Trial and the RT. Only in the full-effort group did the total number of rare mistakes fit a random distribution (binomial distribution, approximating a Poisson distribution). In contrast, the error distribution of the insufficient-effort group did not fit such a model. Applying the Meyers and Meyers criteria for questionable effort based on rare mistakes and the analysis of memory error patterns (MEPs) yielded a specificity of .78 and a sensitivity of .50, whereas a classification using MEPs only yielded a specificity of .85 and a sensitivity of .48. A formula developed by Lu, Boone, Cozolino, and Mitchell (2003) yielded a specificity of .95 and a sensitivity of .52. Built-in RCFT validity indicators may need to be improved in order to elevate classification accuracy.
Zusammenfassung: Beschwerdenvalidierungstests (BVT) dienen zur Überprüfung der Gültigkeit erhaltener Testprofile. Im Rahmen eines Analogdesigns wurden drei BVT (Medical Symptom Validity Test MSVT, Amsterdamer Kurzzeitgedächtnistest AKGT, One-in-Five Test) sowie eine Reihe von Beschwerdenvaliditätsindikatoren anderer Tests auf ihre Güte überprüft. 24 jüngere Erwachsene mit dem Mindestbildungsabschluss Abitur zeigten in der Untersuchung entweder ihre volle Leistung oder waren instruiert, entsprechend einem detaillierten Szenario überzeugend kognitive Störungen vorzutäuschen. Neben den drei BVT wurden folgende neuropsychologische Tests durchgeführt: der Trail Making Test (TMT), der Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial (RCFT), der Test d2, der Judgment of Line Orientation Test (JLO) und das Zahlennachsprechen des HAWIE-R, woraus auch die Reliable Digit Span (RDS) bestimmt wurde. Für den MSVT, den AKGT und die RDS konnten durch Testwiederholung nach zwei bis drei Tagen bzw. Einsatz einer Äquivalenzform des MSVT Reliabilitätsangaben erhalten werden. Für den AKGT und den MSVT-Durchgang Verzögerte Wiedererkennung ergaben sich zufrieden stellende Reliabilitätskoeffizienten (mit Phi-Koeffizienten von je 0.92), die für die RDS niedriger ausfielen (0.74). Die Ergebnisse zeigen auch eine gute Klassifikationsgüte für die BVT und die RDS, die zwischen 100 % (AKGT) und 79 % (One-in-Five Test) lag. Andere Validitätsindikatoren, die aus TMT, d2 und JLO ermittelt werden, schnitten schlechter ab. Während BVT gegenwärtig die best entwickelte Methodenklasse zur Diagnostik suboptimalen Leistungsverhaltens darstellen, sollte die Güte von Beschwerdenvaliditätsindikatoren, die aus Standardtests abgeleitet werden, deutlich besser überprüft werden, bevor ihr Einsatz in der Einzelfalldiagnostik in Frage kommt.
Continuing a previous review on problems and strategies for the assessment of negative response bias (Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2002;70:126-138), an update on research published from 2002 to 2005 is provided. More than 400 journal articles were included in the analysis, It was found that symptom validity tests or effort tests are generally accepted as the one method which is best developed for the assessment of negative response bias. Other methods, including questionnaires and rating methods, are reviewed. Three important applications of symptom validity assessment are analysed in some more detail: retrograde amnesia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and pain. --Research activities in the field of what was previously called "malingering research" have not decreased, so further important developments can be expected in the years to come.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.