Assessment of Malingering and Falsification: Continuing to Push the Boundaries of Knowledge in Research and Clinical Practice

Faust, David; Gaudet, Charles E.; Ahern, David C.; Bridges, Ana J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54656-4_1

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Namely, it is possible for each of the following groups to exist: dementia with valid performance (D + /V + ), dementia with invalid performance (D + /V − ), no dementia with valid performance (D − /V + ), and no dementia with invalid performance (D − /V − ). Current PVTs offer incremental gains in accuracy in detecting D + /V + and D − /V + ; however, methods for identifying D + /V − and D − /V − are suboptimal and seemingly nonexistent (for review of this topic see Faust et al, 2021). Enhancing clinicians' ability to narrow the base rates will mitigate PVT limitations to some extent.…”

Section: Base Rates Pvts and Dementiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of performance validity tests in dementia evaluations: The role of base rates.

Gaudet¹,

Castelluccio²,

Gold³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are frequently used to detect invalid performance on cognitive testing. The inclusion of PVTs in cognitive test batteries is commonplace irrespective of the condition of interest. However, base rates of invalid performance vary across clinical populations. Research accounting for base rates of invalid performance in varying clinical populations and PVT classification accuracy rates are not commonly synthesized. To address this gap, the present study examined the clinical utility of select PVTs used with older adults presenting for dementia evaluations. We computed posterior probabilities of invalid performance for the select PVTs using an estimated 5% base rate of invalid performance based on prior published studies. Posterior probabilities of invalid performance based on a PVT failure (i.e., invalid performance identified as invalid) ranged from 7.3% to 60.3% across PVTs; posterior probabilities of a false positive (i.e., valid performance identified as invalid) ranged from 39.7% to 92.7%. Conversely, posterior probabilities of a true negative (i.e., valid performance identified as valid) ranged from 95.7% to 99.3%; posterior probabilities of a false negative (i.e., invalid performance identified as valid) ranged from 0.7% to 4.3%. Results call into question the utility of PVTs in dementia evaluations. Consequently, the use of PVTs in dementia evaluations is likely to erroneously identify valid test data as invalid (i.e., false-positive error) at a frequency that exceeds the estimated 5% base rate of invalid performance. Further research examining correlates of invalid performance among older adults will clarify base rate estimates and potentially enhance the utility of PVTs.

show abstract

Section: Base Rates Pvts and Dementiamentioning

confidence: 99%