Utility of critical items within the Recognition Memory Test and Word Choice Test

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the clinical utility of critical items within the Recognition Memory Test (RMT) and the Word Choice Test (WCT). Archival data were collected from a mixed clinical sample of 202 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological testing (54.5% male; mean age = 45.3 years; mean level of education = 13.9 years). The credibility of a given response set was psychometrically defined using three separate composite measures, each of which was based on multiple independent performance validity indicators. Critical items improved the classification accuracy of both tests. They increased sensitivity by correctly identifying an additional 2-17% of the invalid response sets that passed the traditional cutoffs based on total score. They also increased specificity by providing additional evidence of noncredible performance in response sets that failed the total score cutoff. The combination of failing the traditional cutoff, but passing critical items was associated with increased risk of misclassifying the response set as invalid. Critical item analysis enhances the diagnostic power of both the RMT and WCT. Given that critical items require no additional test material or administration time, but help reduce both false positive and false negative errors, they represent a versatile, valuable, and time- and cost-effective supplement to performance validity assessment.

Performance Validity Testing in Justice-Involved Adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

“…This finding is consistent with suggestions that embedded PVTs may be less robust to cognitive impairment compared to stand-alone PVTs (Zenisek et al, 2016). For instance, findings regarding the utility of LM-II-R appear mixed, and recent studies have shown that it has inadequate classification accuracy compared to other commonly used PVTs (e.g., WC) and mixed specificity and sensitivity in clinical samples, including those with cognitive impairment (Bain et al, 2019;Erdodi, Tyson, et al, 2018;Greve et al, 2008;Miller et al, 2011;Soble et al, 2018;Webber & Soble, 2018). Thus, the current findings highlight the need for further research examining performance patterns using embedded PVTs in populations with severe cognitive impairment, given their inextricable relation to cognitive ability.…”

Detecting memory performance validity with DETECTS: A computerized performance validity test

“…PVTs are usually forced-choice recognition tests, in which a patient, in the presence of a foil, must identify the stimuli which have previously been presented (Blaskewitz, Merten, & Kathmann, 2008;Gervais, Rohling, Green, & Ford, 2004). Although PVTs have been widely studied (Armistead-Jehle, Lange, & Green, 2017;Bianchini, Mathias, & Greve, 2001;Erdodi et al, 2017;Gast & Hart, 2010;Reslan, & Axelrod, 2017;Simões, 2006), a few research issues have emerged over the years.…”

Introducing a Five-Variable Psychiatric Screener based on the Visual Analog Scale (V-5).

“…Diagnoses were determined by the assessing clinicians based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition ( DSM-5 ; APA, 2013) criteria using available medical records, clinical interviews, and psychometric data. A portion of the sample was used in previous publications focused on different topics (Erdodi, 2019; Erdodi et al, 2017; Erdodi, Dunn, et al, 2018; Erdodi, Hurtubise, et al, 2018; Erdodi & Lichtenstein, 2017; Erdodi, Pelletier, & Roth, 2018; Erdodi & Roth, 2017; Erdodi, Sagar, et al, 2018; Erdodi, Seke, et al, 2017; Erdodi, Tyson, et al, 2017, 2018; Rai & Erdodi, 2019; Zuccato et al, 2018). The only inclusion criterion was having data available on the Five-Variable Psychiatric Screener (V-5).…”