Neuroimaging as a biomarker in symptom validity and performance validity testing

Bigler, Erin D.

doi:10.1007/s11682-015-9409-1

Cited by 64 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current state of human brain imaging has just started to use this type of research to identify potential biomarkers for psychiatric illnesses. For instance, one could use brain imaging to test symptom or performance validity (Bigler, ). Accurate modeling of relationships between brain function and behavior is key in this effort but needs much more work (Rigoux & Daunizeau, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward valid and reliable brain imaging results in eating disorders

Frank

Favaro

Marsh

et al. 2018

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human brain imaging can help improve our understanding of mechanisms underlying brain function and how they drive behavior in health and disease. Such knowledge may eventually help us to devise better treatments for psychiatric disorders. However, the brain imaging literature in psychiatry and especially eating disorders has been inconsistent, and studies are often difficult to replicate. The extent or severity of extremes of eating and state of illness, which are often associated with differences in, for instance hormonal status, comorbidity, and medication use, commonly differ between studies and likely add to variation across study results. Those effects are in addition to the well-described problems arising from differences in task designs, data quality control procedures, image data preprocessing and analysis or statistical thresholds applied across studies. Which of those factors are most relevant to improve reproducibility is still a question for debate and further research. Here we propose guidelines for brain imaging research in eating disorders to acquire valid results that are more reliable and clinically useful.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward valid and reliable brain imaging results in eating disorders

Frank

Favaro

Marsh

et al. 2018

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially, concerns have been raised about the potential influence of apathy on PVTs. An apathetic patient may not be able to invest sufficient effort into testing, and consequently be wrongfully classified by the PVT as noncredible (Bigler, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and Symptom Validity Assessment in Patients with Apathy and Cognitive Impairment

Dandachi-FitzGerald

Duits

Leentjens

et al. 2019

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:Performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs) measure the credibility of the assessment results. Cognitive impairment and apathy potentially interfere with validity test performance and may thus lead to an incorrect (i.e., false-positive) classification of the patient’s scores as non-credible. The study aimed at examining the false-positive rate of three validity tests in patients with cognitive impairment and apathy.Methods:A cross-sectional, comparative study was performed in 56 patients with dementia, 41 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 41 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Two PVTs – the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Dot Counting Test (DCT) – and one SVT – the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) – were administered. Apathy was measured with the Apathy Evaluation Scale, and severity of cognitive impairment with the Mini Mental State Examination.Results:The failure rate was 13.7% for the TOMM, 23.8% for the DCT, and 12.5% for the SIMS. Of the patients with data on all three tests (n = 105), 13.5% failed one test, 2.9% failed two tests, and none failed all three. Failing the PVTs was associated with cognitive impairment, but not with apathy. Failing the SVT was related to apathy, but not to cognitive impairment.Conclusions:In patients with cognitive impairment or apathy, failing one validity test is not uncommon. Validity tests are differentially sensitive to cognitive impairment and apathy. However, the rule that at least two validity tests should be failed to identify non-credibility seemed to ensure a high percentage of correct classification of credibility.

show abstract

“…The above statement indicates an inability of the ImPACT test to consistently align healthy asymptomatic patients with no cognitive impairments (and vice versa) and suggests that the ImPACT test results likely must be considered in terms of physiological impairments (Talavage et al ., ; Fox, ; Iverson et al ., ; Kontos et al ., ; Bigler, ). Moreover, there are other concussion management practices which rely on balance testing pre‐ and post‐injury (Guskiewicz, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%