Suppose Hippocrates Had Been a Lawyer: a Conceptual Model of Harm to Litigants; Part 2

Aurbach, Robert

doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9170-y

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Negative response bias allows for only one conclusion: the patient’s self-report of symptoms and life history can no longer be taken at face value (p. 122). The problem with a singular conclusion like this is that typically nothing other than the SVT measure is used to independently show response bias and no other medical, emotional or injury issues are controlled [ 109 , 110 ]. Thus, inferred negative response bias with SVT failure is a common theme and may be a totally appropriate conclusion, but, unless other evidence explicates the role of response bias, a simple below cut-score but above chance SVT performance does not prove response bias.…”

Section: What Is In a Name?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury

Bigler

2014

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. Review: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a ‘passing’ SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed. Conclusions: Advances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed.

show abstract

Section: What Is In a Name?mentioning

confidence: 99%