Psychometric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in inpatient liver transplant candidates.

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a consequence of liver disease and often diagnosed via psychometric testing. With inpatients, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) may be used as part of cognitive screening for transplant candidacy. However, the MoCA was developed to detect mild cognitive impairment in aging populations and its psychometric properties in inpatients with liver disease have not been determined. Retrospective chart review identified inpatient liver transplant candidates who were administered a MoCA as part of their neuropsychological screening and had either no cognitive dysfunction or a diagnosis of HE made by a neuropsychologist (n = 57, mean age = 48.8 ± 12.6 years). Psychometric analyses were conducted and regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive value of different variables on total MoCA scores. Internal consistency of MoCA domain scores was good (α = 0.80). Significant inverse relationships were found with Trail Making Test, Parts A and B (r's = -0.43 and -0.71, respectively). A cutoff score of 24 or below had the best sensitivity (0.72) and specificity (0.77) for identifying those with a diagnosis of HE. Increasing age and the presence of altered mental status were the strongest predictors of lower MoCA scores (both p's < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.10-0.14). The MoCA is appropriate to use with inpatient liver transplant candidates, with a cutoff of 24 or below to detect abnormal cognition. In addition to the clinical interview and other neuropsychological tests (including, but not limited to, the Trail Making Test, Parts A and B), low MoCA scores can help determine the presence of HE.

Identifying Careless Responding With the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised Validity Scales.

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) includes validity scales that assess Deviant Responding (DR), Virtuous Responding, and Inconsistent Responding. We examined the utility of these scales for identifying careless responding using data from two online studies that examined correlates of psychopathy in college students (Sample 1: N = 583; Sample 2: N = 454). Compared with those below the cut scores, those above the cut on the DR scale yielded consistently lower validity coefficients when PPI-R scores were correlated with corresponding scales from the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. The other three PPI-R validity scales yielded weaker and less consistent results. Participants who completed the studies in an inordinately brief amount of time scored significantly higher on the DR and Virtuous Responding scales than other participants. Based on the findings from the current studies, researchers collecting PPI-R data online should consider identifying and perhaps screening out respondents with elevated scores on the DR scale.

Is the Dodo bird endangered in the 21st century? A meta-analysis of treatment comparison studies.

The Dodo bird hypothesis asserts that when bona fide treatments are compared they yield similar outcomes and this hypothesis is consistent with a common factors or contextual model of psychotherapy. Wampold et al. (1997), the most recent comprehensive meta-analysis to test the Dodo bird hypothesis, yielded consistent evidence of treatment equivalence. However, some of Wampold et al.'s analytic strategies, such as using multiple effect sizes from the same study and prioritizing long-term follow-up, may have obscured treatment differences. The current meta-analysis updated Wampold et al. by analyzing studies published in the subsequent 16 years (k=51). Separate effect sizes were calculated for primary outcomes versus secondary outcomes, at termination and follow-up. Contrary to the Dodo bird hypothesis, there was evidence of treatment differences for primary outcomes at termination. Furthermore, cognitive-behavioral treatments may be incrementally more effective than alternative treatments for primary outcomes. Consistent with the Dodo bird hypothesis, there was little evidence of treatment differences for the secondary outcomes at termination and follow-up. There are small, statistically significant differences between bona-fide treatments when the specific targets of those treatments are assessed, but not when secondary outcomes are assessed, providing mixed support for both specific factors and contextual models of psychotherapy.