Performance Curve Classification of Invalid Responding on the Validity Indicator Profile

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide evidence for the validity of performance curve classification on the nonverbal subtest of the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP-NV). A four-fold classification scheme of performance on cognitive testing is proposed. This scheme combines effort and motivation to generate four response classifications: compliant, careless, irrelevant, and malingering. Data are presented across six studies from cognitive and personality testing for 737 male pretrial criminal defendants. Additionally, computer-generated VIP-NV performances were subjected to four levels of randomization to investigate VIP-NV carelessness indicators. The findings support the validity of the four-fold classification scheme and support the classification of response on the basis of motivation and effort.

Are Measures of Cognitive Effort and Motivation Useful in Differentiating Feigned from Genuine Psychiatric Symptoms?

“…Thus, like the TOMM, where extremely low scores should result in greater confidence about the likelihood of malingering, a Suppressed response style appears to provide far stronger evidence of malingering than other Invalid response styles (Irrelevant or Inconsistent). This conclusion, which is similar to one offered by Frederick, Crosby, and Wynkoop (2000), may be even more important in cases where an individual is presenting with psychotic symptoms.…”

“…Frederick, Crosby, and Wynkoop (2000) administered the Non-Verbal subtest of the VIP to a sample of forensic psychiatric patients. They compared 120 forensic psychiatric patients (80 of whom were diagnosed with a psychotic disorder) to 120 non-mentally ill inmates.…”

Predictors of invalid neuropsychological test performance after traumatic brain injury

“…The TOMM and CVLT-II appear to offer non-redundant information in this regard. Other viable choices that have become available in recent years for this purpose include the Word Memory Test [41,42], the Computerized Assessment of Response Bias [43,44], the Validity Indicator Profile [45,46] and the Victoria Symptom Validity Test [47,48]. Recent research has suggested that some of these tests may be more sensitive to invalid neuropsychological test performance than the TOMM, although their false positive rates are not entirely clear and comparisons with the CVLT-II have, to the authors' knowledge, not yet been performed [49,50].…”

Test effort in persons with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome when assessed using the Validity Indicator Profile

“…The VIP has been validated in a variety of samples (e.g., brain injury, suspected and "coached" malingerers; Frederick, 2002;Frederick, 2003;Frederick, Crosby, & Wynkoop, 2000) and has good sensitivity (Nonverbal: 74%, Verbal: 67%) and specificity (Nonverbal: 86%, Verbal: 83%)-better than other measures of malingering that have previously been used in CFS research (i.e., Portland Digit Recognition Test, Rey 15-Item Memory Test, Dot Counting Test; .…”