Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Validity of the Groningen Effort Test in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy.
van Vliet, Fabienne I M; van Schothorst, Henrita P; Donker-Cools, Birgit H P M; Schaafsma, Frederieke G; Ponds, Rudolf W H M; Geurtsen, Gert J.
Afiliación
  • van Vliet FIM; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • van Schothorst HP; Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Donker-Cools BHPM; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Schaafsma FG; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Ponds RWHM; Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Geurtsen GJ; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38572600
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / PSICOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / PSICOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos