Providing a brief corrective statement does not improve test performance in patients invalidating testing: A multisite, single-blind randomized controlled trial.

Objective: Performance below the actual abilities of the examinee can be measured using performance validity tests (PVTs). PVT failure negatively impacts the quality of the neuropsychological assessment. In our study, we addressed this issue by providing a brief corrective statement regarding invalidity to improve test-taking behavior. Methods: This study is a multisite single-blind randomized controlled trial in a consecutive sample of clinically referred adult patients (N = 196) in a general hospital setting. Patients who failed a PVT (n = 71) were randomly allocated to a corrective statement approach (CS; n = 39), in which a brief verbal corrective statement was given by the technician, or received no corrective statement upon indications of invalid performance (NO-CS; n = 32). Both groups (CS and NO-CS) were provided with the same subsequently repeated and newly administered tests. Results: There were no group (CS vs. NO-CS) differences on both the repeated and single-administered PVTs and standard cognitive tests. Furthermore, invalid performing participants benefited significantly less from the repeated test administration compared to the valid performing group. Conclusions: Our study found that a brief corrective within-session statement, to address PVT failure and improve test-taking behavior, did not improve consequent test performance. These results suggest limited value of a brief verbal corrective statement to influence performance below best of capabilities. It highlights the need for more research to identify more effective approaches that can enhance patients test-taking behavior. Ultimately, such efforts are critical in ensuring accurate diagnosis and effective treatment recommendations for patients.

Validity of the Groningen Effort Test in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy.

INTRODUCTION: The use of performance validity tests (PVTs) in a neuropsychological assessment to determine indications of invalid performance has been a common practice for over a decade. Most PVTs are memory-based; therefore, the Groningen Effort Test (GET), a non-memory-based PVT, has been developed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the GET in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy (CSE) using the criterion standard of 2PVTs. A second goal was to determine diagnostic accuracy for GET. METHOD: Sixty patients with suspected CSE referred for NPA were included. The GET was compared to the criterion standard of 2PVTs based on the Test of Memory Malingering and the Amsterdam Short Term Memory Test. RESULTS: The frequency of invalid performance using the GET was significantly higher compared to the criterion of 2PVTs (51.7% vs. 20.0% respectively; p < 0.001). For the GET index, the sensitivity was 75% and the specificity was 54%, with a Youden's Index of 27. CONCLUSION: The GET showed significantly more invalid performance compared to the 2PVTs criterion suggesting a high number of false positives. The general accepted minimum norm of specificity for PVTs of >90% was not met. Therefore, the GET is of limited use in clinical practice with suspected CSE patients.

Internet-based cognitive rehabilitation for working cancer survivors: results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive problems contribute to decline in work performance. We evaluated (1) the effectiveness of basic self-management and extensive therapist-guided online cognitive rehabilitation on attainment of individually predetermined work-related goals among occupationally active cancer survivors, and (2) whether effectiveness of the programs differed for survivors with and without formal cognitive impairment. METHODS: In a 3-arm randomized controlled trial (NCT03900806), 279 non-central nervous system cancer survivors with cognitive complaints were assigned to the basic program (n = 93), the extensive program (n = 93), or a waiting-list control group (n = 93). Participants completed measurements pre-randomization (T0), 12 weeks post-randomization upon program completion (T1), and 26 weeks post-randomization (T2). Mixed-effects modeling was used to compare intervention groups with the control group on goal attainment, and on self-perceived cognitive problems, work ability, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Participants in the extensive program achieved their predetermined goals better than those in the control group, at short- and long-term follow-up (effect size [ES] = .49; P < .001; ES = .34; P = .014). They also had fewer recovery needs after work (ES = -.21; P = .011), more vitality (ES = .20; P = .018), and better physical role functioning (ES = .0.43 P = .015) than controls. At long-term follow-up, this finding persisted for physical role functioning (ES = .42; P = .034). The basic program elicited a small positive nonsignificant short-term (not long-term) effect on goal attainment for those with adequate adherence (ES = .28, P = .053). Effectiveness of the programs did not differ for patients with or without cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based therapist-guided extensive cognitive rehabilitation improves work-related goal attainment. Considering the prevalence of cognitive problems in survivors, it is desirable to implement this program.

The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool; a validity and reliability study.

INTRODUCTION: Follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly focused on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool is developed to measure these outcomes and support patient-oriented care. The tool comprises items assessing burden of disease and lifestyle parameters. It consists of a generic module combined with one of the three CRC specific modules. The objective of this study is to assess the construct validity and reliability of the items of the ABCRC-tool. METHODS: Patients who were receiving follow-up care after surgical CRC treatment were invited to complete the ABCRC-tool together with other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Construct validity was assessed by testing expected correlations between items of the ABCRC-tool and domains of other PROMs and by examining predefined hypotheses regarding differences in subgroups of patients. Patients completed the ABCRC-tool twice, with 8 days apart, to evaluate its reliability. RESULTS: In total, 177 patients participated (64% male) with a mean age of 67 years (range 33-88). The colon, rectum and stoma module were completed by subsequently 89, 53 and 35 patients. Most items correlated as expected with anticipated domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QLQ-CR29 (all p-values <0.05). Furthermore, the ABCRC-tool could discriminate between subgroups of patients. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was good (>0.70) for most items, indicating good reliability. CONCLUSION: The ABCRC-tool is a valid and reliable instrument that is ready for use in a clinical setting to support personalized follow-up care after CRC treatment.