Multivariable analysis of the relative utility and additive value of eight embedded performance validity tests for classifying invalid neuropsychological test performance

Jennette, Kyle J; Rhoads, Tasha; Resch, Zachary J; Cerny, Brian M.; Leib, Sophie I.; Sharp, Dillon W.; Ovsiew, Gabriel P.; Soble, Jason R.

doi:10.1080/13803395.2022.2128067

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a cross-validation study, Soble, Sharp, et al (2021) similarly found the RAVLT-FC was an effective EVI, but the optimal cut score varied by the severity of verbal memory impairment: ≤14 (no memory impairment; 82% sensitivity/ 89% specificity); ≤13 (mild memory impairment; 66% sensitivity/93% specificity); ≤11 (severe memory impairment; 37% sensitivity/88% specificity). Most recently, Jennette, Rhoads, et al (2022) examined the RAVLT-ES and RAVLT-FC as part of a battery of eight EVIs and found that RAVLT-FC consistently emerged as a significant predictor of validity status and outperformed most of the other EVIs examined in this study. Collectively, similar to the ES, the existing RAVLT-FC literature supports its utility as an EVI across diverse clinical populations, although slight cut score modifications are necessary with increasing impairment severity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Cross-validating the embedded performance validity indicators in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in mixed neuropsychiatric and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder clinical samples.

Tse¹,

Finley²,

Frick³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a common test of learning and memory with established embedded validity indicators (EVIs), including the Effort Score (ES) and Forced Choice (FC) recognition. Currently, the literature lacks a head-to-head comparison of the classification accuracy of ES and FC for detecting invalid test performance. This study aimed to cross-validate ES and FC in two large, diverse, independent samples. Method: This cross-sectional study included a mixed neuropsychiatric (n = 209) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) sample (n = 544). Validity groups were established using multiple criterion performance validity tests (PVTs), resulting in 242 valid/57 invalid and 480 valid/64 invalid performances in the neuropsychiatric and ADHD samples, respectively. Results: ES and FC both demonstrated robust classification accuracy. The optimal ES cut score was significantly higher for the ADHD (≤13; 41% sensitivity/90% specificity) than the neuropsychiatric (≤3; 33% sensitivity/89% specificity) sample. Classification accuracies of FC ranged from weak in the ADHD (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.67) to excellent in the neuropsychiatric (AUC = 0.80) sample. The FC cut score was ≤12 (54% sensitivity/91% specificity) in the neuropsychiatric and ≤14 in the ADHD (41% sensitivity/93% specificity) sample. Both EVIs were significant predictors of validity status when examined in combination. Conclusions: Both the RAVLT-ES and RAVLT-FC were effective as PVTs; however, their relative utility varied by sample such that FC had stronger classification statistics in the neuropsychiatric sample (which included a higher incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia), whereas ES was more robust in the adult ADHD sample. Moreover, considering both EVIs may result in greater accuracy than isolation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Cross-validating the embedded performance validity indicators in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in mixed neuropsychiatric and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder clinical samples.

Tse¹,

Finley²,

Frick³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sample was large and ethnically diverse. Performance validity was controlled, using empirically supported criteria for invalidity (Jennette et al, 2022; Rhoads et al, 2021; Sweet et al, 2021). Symptom validity was also controlled, using manual-specified and independently validated criteria (Bracken & Boatwright, 2005; Leib et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, a total of 164 patients were administered the BAARS-IV. Patients were excluded if they (1) demonstrated invalid test performance as defined by failure of two or more of the five performance validity tests (PVTs) administered, consistent with current empirically supported practice standards (see Jennette et al, 2022; Rhoads et al, 2021; Sweet et al, 2021), or (2) produced invalid symptom reporting profiles (see below). Of 164 individuals who completed the BAARS-IV, nine had invalid neuropsychological performance data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Subfactors of Adult Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome and Impact on Neuropsychological Performance

Khalid,

VanLandingham,

Basurto

et al. 2024

J Atten Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study investigated subfactors of cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS; previously referred as sluggish cognitive tempo) among adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Method: Retrospective analyses of data from 164 outpatient neuropsychological evaluations examined associations between CDS subfactors and self-reported psychological symptoms and cognitive performance. Results: Factor analysis produced two distinct but positively correlated constructs: “Cognitive Complaints’’ and “Lethargy.” Both correlated positively with symptom reports (rs = 0.26–0.57). Cognitive Complaints correlated negatively with working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning performance (rs = −0.21 to −0.37), whereas Lethargy correlated negatively only with processing speed and executive functioning performance (rs = −0.26 to −0.42). Both predicted depression symptoms, but only Cognitive Complaints predicted inattention symptoms. Both subfactors demonstrated modest to nonsignificant associations with cognitive performance after accounting for estimated premorbid intelligence and inattention. Conclusion: Findings indicate a bidimensional conceptualization of CDS, with differential associations between its constituent subfactors, reported symptoms, and cognitive performance.

show abstract

“…Specifically, referral sources were as follows: Memory Disorders Clinic = 154 (35.0%); General Neurology = 83 (18.9%); Movement Disorders Clinic = 52 (11.8%); Epilepsy Clinic = 43 (9.8%); Multiple Sclerosis = 23 (5.2%); Brain Tumor = 17 (3.9%); Other = 68 (15.5%). Eleven patients were excluded from the analysis due to invalid neuropsychological testing results based on scores below cutoff on two or more (Jennette et al, 2022; Rhoads et al, 2021) performance validity measures (Victoria symptom validity test [VSVT] hard score <18: (Grote et al, 2000; Keary et al, 2013; Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 <40: Denning, 2012; Reliable Digit Span <6: Schroeder et al, 2012). Demographic characteristics for 440 included patients are displayed in Table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Self-Administered Visual and Verbal Episodic Memory Tasks in Healthy Controls and a Clinical Sample

Floden,

Hogue,

Postle

et al. 2023

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the performance characteristics, construct validity, and reliability of two computerized, self-administered verbal and visual recognition memory tests based on the Remember-Know paradigm. Around 250 healthy control participants and 440 patients referred for neuropsychological assessment used an iPad to complete the Words and Faces recognition memory tests before or after concurrent neuropsychological testing. Performance accuracy was high but without ceiling effects. Education, but not age, was related to overall performance for both samples while the influence of gender and race differed across samples. In the clinical sample, overall performance was worse in those patients demonstrating memory impairment on clinical assessment. Words and Faces subtests demonstrated the strongest correlations with neuropsychological measures of verbal and nonverbal memory, respectively. Both showed moderate correlations with processing speed while Faces was also correlated with visuospatial skills. The memory tests showed good test–retest reliability over two testing sessions. These findings demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties in clinical and community samples and suggest that this computerized format is feasible for memory assessment in clinical contexts.

show abstract

Multivariable analysis of the relative utility and additive value of eight embedded performance validity tests for classifying invalid neuropsychological test performance

Cited by 6 publications

References 53 publications

Cross-validating the embedded performance validity indicators in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in mixed neuropsychiatric and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder clinical samples.

Cross-validating the embedded performance validity indicators in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in mixed neuropsychiatric and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder clinical samples.

Exploring Subfactors of Adult Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome and Impact on Neuropsychological Performance

Validation of Self-Administered Visual and Verbal Episodic Memory Tasks in Healthy Controls and a Clinical Sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About