Evaluating the clinical utility of the Validity-10 for detecting amplified symptom reporting for patients with mild traumatic brain injury and comorbid psychological health conditions.

The objective of this study was to compare the Validity-10 scale with the PAI Negative Impression Management Scale (PAI-NIM) for detecting exaggerated symptom reporting in active-duty military service members (SMs) admitted with unremitting mild TBI symptoms and comorbid psychological health conditions (mTBI/PH). Data were analyzed from 254 SMs who completed the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) as a part of a larger battery of self-report symptom scales upon admission to the intensive-outpatient TBI treatment program at a military medical center. Symptom exaggeration was operationalized using the PAI Negative Impression Management Scale (PAI-NIM). A PAI-NIM score of ≥73 was categorized as positive for symptom exaggeration (SVTpos), while a lower score was categorized as negative for symptom exaggeration (SVTneg). SMs in the SVTpos group (n = 34) had significantly higher scores (p ≤ .004) on the PAI clinical scales as well as on the NSI total score (range: d = 0.59-1.91) compared to those who were SVTneg (n = 220). The optimal cut-score for the NSI Val-10 scale to identify possible symptom exaggeration was ≥26 (sensitivity = .29, specificity = .95, PPP = .74, NPP = .71). In patients suffering from mTBI/PH, the Validity-10 requires a higher cut-score than previously reported to be useful as a metric of exaggerated symptom reporting.

Clinical utility of the Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II to detect poor effort in U.S. military personnel following traumatic brain injury.

The purpose of this study is to examine the clinical utility of the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) as an embedded marker of poor effort in military personnel undergoing neuropsychological evaluations following traumatic brain injury. Participants were 158 U.S. military service members divided into 3 groups on the basis of brain injury severity and performance (pass/fail) on 2 symptom validity tests: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI)-Pass (n = 87), MTBI-Fail (n = 42), and severe traumatic brain injury (STBI)-Pass (n = 29). The MTBI-Fail group performed worse on the majority of CPT-II measures compared with both the MTBI-Pass and STBI-Pass groups. When comparing the MTBI-Fail group and MTBI-Pass groups, the most accurate measure for identifying poor effort was the Commission T score. When selected measures were combined (i.e., Omissions, Commissions, and Perseverations), there was a very small increase in sensitivity (from .26 to .29). When comparing the MTBI-Fail group and STBI-Pass groups, the most accurate measure for identifying poor effort was the Omission and Commissions T score. When selected measures were combined, sensitivity again increased (from .24 to .45). Overall, these results suggest that individual CPT-II measures can be useful for identifying people who are suspected of providing poor effort from those who have provided adequate effort. However, due to low sensitivity and modest negative predictive power values, this measure cannot be used in isolation to detect poor effort, and is largely useful as a test to "rule in," not "rule out" poor effort.