A single error is one too many: Examining alternative cutoffs on Trial 2 of the TOMM

Erdődi, László A.; Jaspreet, K.

doi:10.1080/02699052.2017.1332386

Cited by 47 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A quarter of the patients (26-28%) scored in the Failing range. Consistent with previous research (An et al, 2019;Erdodi, Green, et al, 2019;Erdodi & Rai, 2017;Erdodi, Taylor, et al, 2019;, the EI-5s were significant predictors of the two free-standing PVTs. An EI-5 MEM score !4 was specific to failing the Note.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The unexpectedly high BR Fail on the free-standing PVTs (9.0%-29.2%) in the incentivized control group puts the low BR Fail on the Yes/No Recognition and RCFT FCR trials (1.2%) in perspective. Namely, it neutralizes arguments that EVIs inevitably conflate genuine impairment and non-credible responding (Glassmire et al., 2019; Messa et al., 2020 ) when compared to free-standing PVTs that are, by design, robust to genuine and severe cognitive impairment ( Abeare et al., 2019 ; Erdodi & Rai, 2017 ; Whitney et al., 2013 ). If this finding is replicated by future research, it would further enhance the appeal of the RCFT recognition trials as EVIs.…”

Section: Incidental Findingsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we attempted to replicate the classification accuracy of the newly introduced Forced Choice Recognition trial (FCR) of the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT) in a clinical sample. We administered the RCFT FCR and the earlier Yes/No Recognition trial from the RCFT to 52 clinically referred patients as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and incentivized a separate control group of 83 university students to perform well on these measures. We then computed the classification accuracies of both measures against criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and compared results between the two samples. At previously published validity cutoffs (≤16 & ≤17), the RCFT FCR remained specific (.84–1.00) to psychometrically defined non-credible responding. Simultaneously, the RCFT FCR was more sensitive to examinees’ natural variability in visual-perceptual and verbal memory skills than the Yes/No Recognition trial. Even after being reduced to a seven-point scale (18-24) by the validity cutoffs, both RCFT recognition scores continued to provide clinically useful information on visual memory. This is the first study to validate the RCFT FCR as a PVT in a clinical sample. Our data also support its use for measuring cognitive ability. Replication studies with more diverse samples and different criterion measures are still needed before large-scale clinical application of this scale.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Incidental Findingsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reference PVTs provide a calculated, strategic method variance for the cross-validation analyses (Erdodi & Rai, 2017), because they all possess certain unique features. The RMT encourages dual encoding (auditory and visual) in addition to factoring both speed and accuracy into the final decision about performance validity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low scores on the Grooved Pegboard Test are associated with invalid responding and psychiatric symptoms.

Erdődi¹,

Seke²,

Shahein³

et al. 2017

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A link between noncredible responding and low scores on the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) is well documented in the clinical literature. However, no specific validity cutoffs have emerged in previous research. This study was designed to examine the classification accuracy of various demographically adjusted cutoffs on the GPB against established measures of performance validity. Analyses were based on a mixed clinical sample of 190 patients (52.1% female) medically referred for neuropsychological assessment. Mean age of participants was 44.1 years, with a mean education of 13.9 years. Criterion measures were the Recognition Memory Test and 3 composites based on several embedded validity indicators. A T score Յ29 for either hand or Յ31 on both hands were reliable markers of invalid performance (sensitivity ϭ .29 -.63; specificity ϭ .85-.91). Ipsative analyses revealed that these T score-based cutoffs have zero false positive rates. Failing these cutoffs had no consistent relationship with overall cognitive functioning. A moderate relationship between GPB failure and self-reported anxiety and depression emerged on face-valid screening measures. There was also a moderate relationship between GPB failure and Personality Assessment Inventory scales measuring somatic complaints, borderline traits, antisocial features, and substance use. The newly introduced GPB validity cutoffs were effective at separating credible and noncredible performance on neuropsychological testing. The complex relationship between failing the GPB and emotional problems is consistent with the psychogenic interference hypothesis. It may provide insight into the mechanism behind invalid responding and thus warrants further investigation.

show abstract

“…However, the cumulative evidence suggests that individuals with significant cognitive dysfunction (e.g., Warrington, 1984), and even examinees who were explicitly asked to feign cognitive deficits (e.g., Guilmette, Hart, & Giuliano, 1993; Martin, Bolter, Todd, Gouvier, & Niccolls, 1993; Pearson, 2009) in addition to individuals suspected of feigning cognitive deficits (e.g., Hiscock, Branham, & Hiscock, 1994), typically perform above chance levels on these tasks. In the light of these findings, theoretically based cutoffs grounded in the binomial probability distribution were gradually replaced by more liberal cutoffs that have been identified through empirical investigations (Bianchini, Mathias, & Greve, 2001; Davis, 2014; Denning, 2012; Erdodi & Rai, 2017; Hilsabeck, Gordon, Hietpas-Wilson, & Zartman, 2011; Iverson & Franzen, 1994; Jones, 2013; Kulas, Axelrod, & Rinaldi, 2014; M. S. Kim et al, 2010; O’Bryant, Engel, Kleiner, Vasterling, & Black, 2007; Rai & Erdodi, in press; Zuccato, Tyson, & Erdodi, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Rey Complex Figure Test.

Jaspreet¹,

An²,

Charles³

et al. 2019

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to introduce and validate a forced choice recognition trial to the Rey Complex Figure Test (FCR RCFT ). Healthy undergraduate students at a midsized Canadian university were randomly assigned to the control (n ϭ 80) or experimental malingering (n ϭ 60) conditions. All participants were administered a brief battery of neuropsychological tests. The FCR RCFT had good overall classification accuracy (area under the curve: .79 -.88) against various criterion variables. The conservative cutoff (Յ16) was highly specific (.93-.96) but not very sensitive (.38 -.51). Conversely, the liberal cutoff (Յ18) was sensitive (.57-.72) but less specific (.88 -.90). The FCR RCFT provided unique information about performance validity above and beyond the existing yes/no recognition trial. Combining multiple RCFT validity indices improved classification accuracy. The utility of previously published validity indicators embedded in the RCFT was also replicated. The FCR RCFT extends the growing trend of enhancing the clinical utility of widely used standard memory tests by developing a built-in validity check. Multivariate models were superior to univariate cutoffs. Although the FCR RCFT performed well in the current sample, replication in clinical/forensic patients is needed to establish its utility in differentiating genuine memory deficits from noncredible responding.

show abstract

A single error is one too many: Examining alternative cutoffs on Trial 2 of the TOMM

Cited by 47 publications

References 58 publications

Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

Low scores on the Grooved Pegboard Test are associated with invalid responding and psychiatric symptoms.

Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Rey Complex Figure Test.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About