Comparing embedded performance validity indicators within the WAIS-IV Letter-Number sequencing subtest to Reliable Digit Span among adults referred for evaluation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Objectives: This study investigated the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) subtest as an embedded performance validity indicator among adults undergoing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation, and its potential incremental value over Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Method: This cross-sectional study comprised 543 adults who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into valid (n = 480) and invalid (n = 63) groups based on multiple criterion performance validity tests. Results: LNS total raw scores, age-corrected scaled scores, and age- and education-corrected T-scores demonstrated excellent classification accuracy (area under the curve of .84, .83, and .82, respectively). The optimal cutoff for LNS raw score (≤16), age-corrected scaled score (≤7), and age- and education-corrected T-score (≤36) yielded .51 sensitivity and .94 specificity. Slightly lower sensitivity (.40) and higher specificity (.98) was associated with a more conservative T-score cutoff of ≤33. Multivariate models incorporating both LNS and RDS improved classification accuracy (area under the curve of .86), and LNS scores explained a significant but modest proportion of variance in validity status above and beyond RDS. Chaining LNS T-score of ≤33 with RDS cutoff of ≤7 increased sensitivity to .69 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the criterion and construct validity of LNS as an embedded validity indicator in ADHD evaluations. Practitioners are encouraged to use LNS T-score cutoff of ≤33 or ≤36 to assess the validity of obtained test data. Employing either of these LNS cutoffs with RDS may enhance the detection of invalid performance.

Exploring Subfactors of Adult Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome and Impact on Neuropsychological Performance.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated subfactors of cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS; previously referred as sluggish cognitive tempo) among adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Retrospective analyses of data from 164 outpatient neuropsychological evaluations examined associations between CDS subfactors and self-reported psychological symptoms and cognitive performance. RESULTS: Factor analysis produced two distinct but positively correlated constructs: "Cognitive Complaints'' and "Lethargy." Both correlated positively with symptom reports (rs = 0.26-0.57). Cognitive Complaints correlated negatively with working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning performance (rs = -0.21 to -0.37), whereas Lethargy correlated negatively only with processing speed and executive functioning performance (rs = -0.26 to -0.42). Both predicted depression symptoms, but only Cognitive Complaints predicted inattention symptoms. Both subfactors demonstrated modest to nonsignificant associations with cognitive performance after accounting for estimated premorbid intelligence and inattention. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate a bidimensional conceptualization of CDS, with differential associations between its constituent subfactors, reported symptoms, and cognitive performance.

Cross-validating the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult symptom validity scales for assessment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult is among the few questionnaires that offer validity indicators (i.e., Negative Impression [NI], Infrequency [IF], and Positive Impression [PI]) for classifying underreporting and overreporting of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. This is the first study to cross-validate the NI, IF, and PI scales in a sample of adults with suspected or known ADHD. METHOD: Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the independent and combined value of the NI, IF, and PI scores in predicting invalid symptom reporting and neurocognitive performance in a sample of 543 adults undergoing ADHD evaluation. RESULTS: The NI scale demonstrated better classification accuracy than the IF scale in discriminating patients with and without valid scores on measures of overreporting. Only NI scores significantly predicted validity status when used in combination with IF scores. Optimal cut-scores for the NI (≤51; 30% sensitivity / 90% specificity) and IF (≥4; 18% sensitivity / 90% specificity) scales were consistent with those reported in the original manual; however, these indicators poorly discriminated patients with invalid and valid neurocognitive performance. The PI scale demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy in discriminating patients with invalid and valid scores on measures of underreporting, albeit with an optimal cut-score (≥27; 36% sensitivity / 90% specificity) lower than that described in the manual. CONCLUSION: Findings provide preliminary evidence of construct validity for these scales as embedded validity indicators of symptom overreporting and underreporting. However, these scales should not be used to guide clinical judgment regarding the validity of neurocognitive test performance.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Profiles Among Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Examining the Effect of Comorbid Psychopathology and ADHD Presentation.

OBJECTIVE: Despite widespread use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), it is surprisingly understudied among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This is significant as ADHD is a frequent referral for neuropsychological evaluation; however, the core symptom of attention difficulty is a nonspecific sequela of many psychological disorders. This study aimed to characterize MMPI-2-RF profiles among adults with ADHD and examine the effect of comorbid psychopathology. METHOD: A large, demographically diverse sample of 413 consecutive adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation to assist with differential diagnosis of ADHD who completed the MMPI-2-RF was examined. Profiles of the 145 patients diagnosed with ADHD-only were compared to 192 with ADHD and a comorbid psychological disorder and a 55-patient non-ADHD psychiatric comparison group. Among the ADHD-only group, profiles also were compared based on ADHD-presentation type (Predominantly Inattentive vs. Combined presentation). RESULTS: The ADHD/psychopathology and psychiatric comparison groups scored higher than the ADHD-only group across nearly all scales with widespread clinical elevations. Conversely, the ADHD-only group displayed an isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. Comparison between ADHD presentations revealed several small-moderate significant differences, the largest of which occurred on the Externalizing and Interpersonal scales. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD alone, and no other psychopathology have a unique MMPI-2-RF profile characterized by isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. These results support use of the MMPI-2-RF in assessment of adults with ADHD as it can help distinguish ADHD alone from ADHD/comorbid psychopathology and identify relevant psychiatric comorbidities that may be contributing to patients' inattention complaints.

Performance and symptom validity assessment in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Base rates of invalidity, concordance, and relative impact on cognitive performance.

Objective: Differential diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common referral questions for neuropsychological evaluation but is complicated by the presence of external incentives. Validity assessment is therefore critical in such evaluations, employing symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess the validity of reported symptoms and cognitive test performance, respectively. This study aimed to establish the base rate of symptom and performance invalidity in adults referred for ADHD, compare concordance between performance and symptom validity, and assess the impact of each type of validity on cognitive test performance. Method: This consecutive case series included data from 392 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. All patients were administered the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) and a uniform cognitive test battery, including seven PVTs. Results: Invalid symptom reporting and PVT performance were found in 22% and 16% of the sample, respectively. Sixty-eight percent had concordantly valid SVTs/PVTs and 6% had invalid SVTs/PVTs, whereas the remaining 26% had either invalid SVTs or PVTs (but not both). Invalid PVT performance resulted in a significant decrease across all cognitive test scores, with generally large effects (ηp2=.01-.18). Invalid symptom reporting had minimal effects on cognitive test performance (ηp2= ≤.04). Conclusions: PVTs and SVTs are dissociable and therefore should not be used interchangeably in the context of adult ADHD evaluations. Rather, symptom and performance validity should continue to be assessed independently as they provide largely non-redundant information.

Using the Grooved Pegboard Test as an Embedded Validity Indicator in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Validation Problems.

Embedded validity indicators (EVIs) derived from motor tests have received less empirical attention than those derived from tests of other neuropsychological abilities, particularly memory. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) may function as an EVI, but existing studies were largely conducted using simulators and population samples without cognitive impairment. In this study we aimed to evaluate the GPB's classification accuracy as an EVI among a mixed clinical neuropsychiatric sample with and without cognitive impairment. This cross-sectional study comprised 223 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological testing. GPB raw and T-scores for both dominant and nondominant hands were examined as EVIs. A known-groups design, based on ≤1 failure on a battery of validated, independent criterion PVTs, showed that GPB performance differed significantly by validity group. Within the valid group, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that only the dominant hand raw score displayed acceptable classification accuracy for detecting invalid performance (area under curve [AUC] = .72), with an optimal cut-score of ≥106 seconds (33% sensitivity/88% specificity). All other scores had marginally lower classification accuracy (AUCs = .65-.68) for differentiating valid from invalid performers. Therefore, the GPB demonstrated limited utility as an EVI in a clinical sample containing patients with bona fide cognitive impairment.

A Direct Comparison of 10 WAIS-IV Digit Span Embedded Validity Indicators among a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Degrees of Cognitive Impairment.

OBJECTIVE: Reliable Digit Span (RDS), RDS-Revised (RDS-R), and age-corrected scaled score (ACSS) have been previously validated as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV Digit Span subtest (WAIS-IV DS). However, few studies have directly compared the relative utility of these and other proposed WAIS-IV DS validity indicators within a single sample. METHOD: This study compared classification accuracies of 10 WAIS-IV DS indices in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample of 227 outpatients who completed a standardized neuropsychological battery. Participants with ≤1 PVT failures of the four, freestanding criterion PVTs constituted the valid group (n = 181), whereas those with ≥2 PVT failures formed the invalid group (n = 46). Among the valid group, 113 met criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). RESULTS: Classification accuracies for all DS indicators were statistically significant across the overall sample and subsamples with and without MCI, apart from indices derived from the Forward trial in the MCI sample. DS Sequencing ACSS, working memory RDS (wmRDS), and DS ACSS emerged as the most effective predictors of validity status, with acceptable to excellent classification accuracy for the overall sample (AUCs = 0.792-0.816; 35%-50% sensitivity/88%-96% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Although most DS indices demonstrated clinical utility as embedded PVTs, DS Sequencing ACSS, wmRDS, and DS ACSS may be particularly robust to cognitive impairment, minimizing risk of false positive errors while identifying noncredible performance. Moreover, DS indices incorporating data from multiple trials (i.e., wmRDS, DS ACSS) also generally yielded greater classification accuracy than those derived from a single trial.

Cognitive Performance and Psychiatric Self-Reports Across Adult Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome and ADHD Diagnostic Groups.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) is characterized by inattention, under-arousal, and fatigue and frequently co-occurs with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although CDS is associated with cognitive complaints, its association with objective cognitive performance is less well understood. METHOD: This study investigated neuropsychological correlates of CDS symptoms among 169 adults (Mage = 29.4) referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation following inattention complaints. We evaluated cognitive and self-report differences across four high/low CDS and positive/negative ADHD groups, and cognitive and self-report correlates of CDS symptomology. RESULTS: There were no differences in cognitive performance, significant differences in self-reported psychiatric symptoms (greater CDS symptomatology, impulsivity among the high CDS groups; greater inattention among the positive ADHD/high CDS groups; greater hyperactivity among the positive ADHD groups), significant intercorrelations within cognitive and self-report measures, nonsignificant correlations between cognitive measures and self-report measures. CONCLUSION: Findings support prior work demonstrating weak to null associations between ADHD and CDS symptoms and cognitive performance among adults.

Do demographic factors influence detection of invalid neuropsychological test performance using common performance validity tests? A multisite investigation.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the extent to which demographic variables (i.e., age, education, premorbid IQ, sex, ethnoracial identity, and presence/absence of external incentive) affect performance validity test (PVT) performance. METHOD: This cross-sectional study examined two distinct, diverse outpatient clinical samples at an academic medical center (AMC, N = 268) and a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center (N = 111). All patients completed a battery including five PVTs. Premorbid IQ was assessed using the Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) in the AMC sample. RESULTS: Multiple correlations between demographic variables and individual PVT performance were statistically significant, but accompanying effect sizes were small, except for the relationship of premorbid IQ and reliable digit span (RDS). Regressions showed demographic variables accounted for 7%-11% of the variance in individual PVT scores in the AMC sample, and 6%-26% in the VA sample, premorbid IQ driving results in the AMC sample and compensation-seeking status in the VA sample. Other demographic variables did not correlate with compensation-seeking status. Additionally, premorbid IQ was found to be significantly higher in validly performing individuals compared to those performing invalidly in the AMC sample. CONCLUSION: Most demographic factors evaluated accounted for relatively little variance in individual PVT performance and did not significantly predict overall validity categorization. Compensation-seeking status correlated with validity classification across both groups, but offers limited diagnostic utility itself compared to objective PVT scores. Premorbid IQ within the AMC group demonstrated influence on particular PVTs (i.e., RDS) reflecting the difficulty of assessing validity within low IQ populations, particularly with PVTs more strongly correlated with IQ. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Multivariable analysis of the relative utility and additive value of eight embedded performance validity tests for classifying invalid neuropsychological test performance.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated a combination of eight embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) derived from commonly administered neuropsychological tests to optimize sensitivity/specificity for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate what combination of these common embedded PVTs that have the most robust predictive power for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance in a single diverse clinical sample. METHOD: Eight previously validated memory- and nonmemory-based embedded PVTs were examined among 231 patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. Patients were classified into valid/invalid groups based on four independent criterion PVTs. Embedded PVT accuracy was assessed using standard and stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Three PVTs, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised Recognition Discrimination (BVMT-R-RD), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Forced Choice, and WAIS-IV Digit Span Age Corrected Scaled Score, predicted 45.5% of the variance in validity group membership. BVMT-RD independently accounted for 32% of the variance in prediction of independent, criterion-defined validity group membership. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the incremental predictive power of multiple embedded PVTs derived from common neuropsychological measures in detecting invalid test performance and those measures accounting for the greatest portion of the variance. These results provide guidance for evaluating the most fruitful embedded PVTs and proof of concept to better guide selection of embedded validity indices. Further, this offers clinicians an efficient, empirically derived approach to assessing performance validity when time restraints potentially limit the use of freestanding PVTs.

Comparing the Independent and Aggregated Accuracy of Trial 1 and the First 10 TOMM Items for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance Across Civilian and Veteran Clinical Samples.

Previous studies support using two abbreviated tests of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), including (a) Trial 1 (T1) and (b) the number of errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1e10), as performance validity tests (PVTs). In this study, we examined the independent and aggregated predictive utility of TOMM T1 and T1e10 for identifying invalid neuropsychological test performance across two clinical samples. We employed cross-sectional research to examine two independent and demographically diverse mixed samples of military veterans and civilians (VA = 108; academic medical center = 234) of patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. We determined validity groups by patient performance on four independent criterion PVTs. We established concordances between passing/failing the TOMM T1e10 and T1, followed by logistic regression to determine individual and aggregated accuracy of T1e10 and T1 for predicting validity group membership. Concordance between passing T1e10 and T1 was high, as was overall validity (87-98%) across samples. By contrast, T1e10 failure was more highly concordant with T1 failure (69-77%) than with overall invalidity status (59-60%) per criterion PVTs, whereas T1 failure was more highly concordant with invalidity status (72-88%) per criterion PVTs. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated similar results, with T1 accounting for more variance than T1e10. However, combining T1e10 and T1 accounted for the most variance of any model, with T1e10 and T1 each emerging as significant predictors. TOMM T1 and, to a lesser extent, T1e10 were significant predictors of independent criterion-derived validity status across two distinct clinical samples, but they did not offer improved classification accuracy when aggregated.

The impact of visual memory impairment on Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance: A known-groups analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effect of visual learning and recall impairment on Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) accuracy and response latency for Easy, Difficult, and Total Items. METHOD: A sample of 163 adult patients administered the VSVT and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised were classified as valid (114/163) or invalid (49/163) groups via independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Classification accuracies for all VSVT indices were examined for the overall sample, and separately for subgroups based on visual memory functioning. RESULTS: In the overall sample, all indices produced acceptable classification accuracy (areas under the curve [AUCs] ≥ 0.79). When stratified by visual learning/recall impairment, accuracy indices yielded acceptable classification for both the unimpaired (AUCs ≥0.79) and impaired subsamples (AUCs ≥0.75). Latency indices had acceptable classification accuracy for the unimpaired subsample (AUCs ≥0.74), but accuracy and sensitivity dropped for the impaired sample (AUCs ≥0.67). CONCLUSIONS: VSVT accuracy and response latency yielded acceptable classification accuracies in the overall sample, and this effect was maintained in those with and without visual learning/recall impairment for the accuracy indices. Findings indicate that the VSVT is a psychometrically robust PVT with largely invariant cut-scores, even in the presence of bona fide visual learning/recall impairment.

Examining Traditional and Novel Validity Indicators from the Medical Symptom Validity Test Across Levels of Verbal and Visual Memory Impairment.

OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study examined accuracy of traditional Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) validity indicators, including immediate recognition (IR), delayed recognition (DR), and consistency (CNS), as well as a novel indicator derived from the mean performance on IR, DR, and CNS across verbal, visual, and combined learning and memory impairment bands. METHOD: A sample of 180 adult outpatients was divided into valid (n = 150) and invalid (n = 30) groups based on results of four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal and visual learning and recall were classified as indicative of no impairment, mild impairment, or severe impairment based on performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, respectively. RESULTS: In general, individual MSVT subtests were able to accurately classify performance as valid or invalid, even in the context of severe learning and memory deficits. However, as verbal and visual memory impairment increased, optimal MSVT cut-scores diverged from manual-specified cutoffs such that DR and CNS required cut-scores to be lowered to maintain adequate specificity. By contrast, the newly proposed scoring algorithm generally showed more robust psychometric properties across the memory impairment bands. CONCLUSIONS: The mean performance index, a novel scoring algorithm using the mean of the three primary MSVT subtests, may be a more robust validity indicator than the individual MSVT subtests in the context of bona fide memory impairment.

Mean response latency indices on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test do not contribute meaningful predictive value over accuracy scores for detecting invalid performance.

The utility of the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) as a performance validity test (PVT) has been primarily established using response accuracy scores. However, the degree to which response latency may contribute to accurate classification of performance invalidity over and above accuracy scores remains understudied. Therefore, this study investigated whether combining VSVT accuracy and response latency scores would increase predictive utility beyond use of accuracy scores alone. Data from a mixed clinical sample of 163 patients, who were administered the VSVT as part of a larger neuropsychological battery, were analyzed. At least four independent criterion PVTs were used to establish validity groups (121 valid/42 invalid). Logistic regression models examining each difficulty level revealed that all VSVT measures were useful in classifying validity groups, both independently and when combined. Individual predictor classification accuracy ranged from 77.9 to 81.6%, indicating acceptable to excellent discriminability across the validity indices. The results of this study support the value of both accuracy and latency scores on the VSVT to identify performance invalidity, although the accuracy scores had superior classification statistics compared to response latency, and mean latency indices provided no unique benefit for classification accuracy beyond dimensional accuracy scores alone.

Distinct Latent Profiles of Working Memory and Processing Speed in Adults with ADHD.

This study examined the neuropsychological profile of patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) working memory and processing speed indices. We aimed to establish whether distinct ADHD subtypes emerge based on neuropsychological testing and determine whether ADHD subgroups differ based on neurocognitive and demographic factors in 179 adult patients with ADHD. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) revealed four discrete latent subgroups within the sample, each with distinct patterns of working memory and processing speed. Classes significantly differed in demographically predicted IQ, education, and self-reported depression and anxiety. Results reveal heterogeneity in cognitive performance in adult ADHD.

Psychometric implications of failure on one performance validity test: a cross-validation study to inform criterion group definition.

Introduction: Research to date has supported the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) for determining validity status in clinical settings. However, the implications of including versus excluding patients failing one PVT remains a source of debate, and methodological guidelines for PVT research are lacking. This study evaluated three validity classification approaches (i.e. 0 vs. ≥2, 0-1 vs. ≥2, and 0 vs. ≥1 PVT failures) using three reference standards (i.e. criterion PVT groupings) to recommend approaches best suited to establishing validity groups in PVT research methodology.Method: A mixed clinical sample of 157 patients was administered freestanding (Medical Symptom Validity Test, Dot Counting Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Word Choice Test), and embedded PVTs (Reliable Digit Span, RAVLT Effort Score, Stroop Word Reading, BVMT-R Recognition Discrimination) during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Three reference standards (i.e. two freestanding and three embedded PVTs from the above list) were created. Rey 15-Item Test and RAVLT Forced Choice were used solely as outcome measures in addition to two freestanding PVTs not employed in the reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated classification accuracy using the three validity classification approaches for each reference standard.Results: When patients failing only one PVT were excluded or classified as valid, classification accuracy ranged from acceptable to excellent. However, classification accuracy was poor to acceptable when patients failing one PVT were classified as invalid. Sensitivity/specificity across two of the validity classification approaches (0 vs. ≥2; 0-1 vs. ≥2) remained reasonably stable.Conclusions: These results reflect that both inclusion and exclusion of patients failing one PVT are acceptable approaches to PVT research methodology and the choice of method likely depends on the study rationale. However, including such patients in the invalid group yields unacceptably poor classification accuracy across a number of psychometrically robust outcome measures and therefore is not recommended.

Examining Conners Continuous Performance Test-3 (CPT-3) Embedded Performance Validity Indicators in an Adult Clinical Sample Referred for ADHD Evaluation.

This study evaluated multiple previously-identified Continuous Performance Test-Third Edition (CPT-3) scores as embedded validity indicators (EVIs) among 201 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) divided into valid (n = 169) and invalid (n = 32) groups based on seven criterion measures. Although 6/10 CPT-3 scores accurately detected invalidity, only two reached minimally acceptable classification accuracy of ≥0.70. The remaining four had unacceptably low accuracy (AUCs = 0.62-0.69) with 0.19-0.41 sensitivity at ≥0.90 specificity. Composite scores did not provide better classification accuracy than individual CPT-3 scores. In sum, CPT-3 individual and composite scores generally are not accurate PVTs among adults undergoing clinical evaluation for ADHD.

Self-reported affective biases, but not all affective performance biases, are present in depression remission.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with active major depressive disorder (MDD) have shown affective biases in cognitive flexibility and memory, particularly for negatively valenced stimuli. We evaluated whether impairments in affective flexibility would remain even during remission (rMDD), potentially representing trait- or scar-like effects of illness. METHOD: Participants completed the Emotion Card Sort Test (ECST), a measure of cognitive flexibility containing emotionally valenced stimuli, and the Emotion Word Stimulus Test (EWST), a measure of affective biases in delayed recall and recognition memory, and several self-report measures. RESULTS: Healthy controls (HCs; n = 35) and individuals with rMDD (n = 93) did not differ on performance for any of the three word types on the ECST or EWT. However, individuals with rMDD demonstrated greater negative bias on EWT recognition trials relative to HCs (d = .36). On self-report measures, individuals with rMDD exhibited greater levels of neuroticism, problems with attentional control, pessimistic attributional style, and negative automatic thoughts compared to HCs. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide initial evidence that some performance, but not self-reported, indices of affective bias may improve during remission from MDD. Results of this study could suggest that some components of affective bias may represent state feature of illness and others trait-like risk or scar features. PRACTITIONER POINTS: This study suggests that self-reported affective biases may persist in remission of major depressive disorder (rMDD). Affective attentional biases and affective memory biases were not demonstrated in individuals with rMDD, with the exception of a bias for recognizing negatively versus neutrally valenced stimuli. CAUTIONS OR LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study was its cross-sectional design. Under ideal conditions, the same individuals would be studied in both the active and remitted phases of illness. Another limitation of this study was the smaller number of healthy controls relative to individuals with rMDD.