Utility of the D-KEFS color–word interference test as an embedded validity indicator in psychoeducational evaluations.

Abstract

Objective: Previous investigations have yielded divergent results regarding the clinical utility of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) color–word interference test (CWIT) as an embedded validity indicator. The present study sought to cross-validate previously identified indicators and cutoffs in a sample of adults referred for psychoeducational testing. Method: Archival data from 257 students and community members self- referred for a psychoeducational evaluation at a university clinic in the South were analyzed. Individuals who failed 0 criterion measures were included in the credible group and individuals failing 2 or more criterion measures were included in the noncredible group. Individuals who failed only one of the criterion measures were excluded (n = 53), resulting in a final sample of 204 (credible group n = 164; noncredible group n = 40). Results: Individual conditions yielded high specificity (.88–.91) and moderate sensitivity (.30–.45) at a cutoff of ≤6. Composite indicators yielded high specificity (.94–.99) and low to moderate sensitivity (.20–.40) at previously established cutoffs. Utilizing more liberal cutoffs increased sensitivity (.28–.53) at the predictable cost to specificity (.83–.91). Conclusions: While a cutoff of ≤6 resulted in high specificity for most conditions, composite indicators appear to be more robust. Additional research is needed before recommending any specific cutoff be used in clinical practice with individuals seeking psychoeducational assessment.

Valid, invalid, or somewhere in between? Baseline Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) and stand-alone performance validity testing in collegiate athletes.

“…These athletes also reported more symptoms (and less sleep) and demonstrated lower scores on cognitive composites. There is support in the literature for both PVTs and cut scores that are calibrated specifically for ADHD in order to maximize both sensitivity and specificity (Boone et al, 2002; Robinson et al, 2023). One additional interpretation of these findings is a call to create validity indicators specifically for neurodiverse athletes in order to decrease false positives on performance validity testing.…”

Replicating the classification accuracy of the Verbal Paired Associates and Visual Reproduction recognition trials as embedded performance validity tests.

“…A. Erdodi & Rai, 2017; L. Erdodi et al, 2023; Holcomb et al, 2022; Rai & Erdodi, 2021), as well as research groups (Robinson, Miller, et al, 2023; Tyson & Shahein, 2023). In a head-to-head comparison to a free-standing PVT, the EI model produced similar (in fact, slightly superior) classification accuracy (L.…”

Assessing the credibility of clinical presentations using performance and symptom validity tests: Current trends and future directions—Part II.

“…J. Holcomb et al, 2022; Hurtubise et al, 2020; Johnson et al, 2012; C. Lee et al, 2019; Ord et al, 2021; Reedy et al, 2013; Robinson, Calamia, et al, 2023; Robinson, Miller, et al, 2023; Robinson, Reed, et al, 2023; Sawyer et al, 2017; Shura et al, 2016; Tyson et al, 2023) abbreviating expansive/multitrial tests (K. Abeare, Cutler, et al, 2022; Beach et al, 2023; Denning, 2012, 2021), as well as formalizing methods for aggregating results from multiple sources (Erdodi, 2019, 2021, 2023).…”