Validation of the personality assessment inventory (PAI) cognitive bias (CBS) and cognitive bias scale of scales (CB-SOS) in a post-deployment veteran sample.

Objective: The present study evaluated the function of four cognitive, symptom validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) 1, 2, and 3 in a sample of Veterans who volunteered for a study of neurocognitive functioning. Method: 371 Veterans (88.1% male, 66.1% White) completed a battery including the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), the Word Memory Test (WMT), and the PAI. Independent samples t-tests compared mean differences on cognitive bias scales between valid and invalid groups on the M-FAST and WMT. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and hit rate across various scale point-estimates were used to evaluate classification accuracy of the CBS and CB-SOS scales. Results: Group differences were significant with moderate effect sizes for all cognitive bias scales between the WMT-classified groups (d = .52-.55), and large effect sizes between the M-FAST-classified groups (d = 1.27-1.45). AUC effect sizes were moderate across the WMT-classified groups (.650-.676) and large across M-FAST-classified groups (.816-.854). When specificity was set to .90, sensitivity was higher for M-FAST and the CBS performed the best (sensitivity = .42). Conclusion: The CBS and CB-SOS scales seem to better detect symptom invalidity than performance invalidity in Veterans using cutoff scores similar to those found in prior studies with non-Veterans.

Preliminary evidence for digit span performance validity indicators within the neuropsychological assessment battery.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate multiple embedded performance validity indicators within the Digits Forward and Digits Backward subtests of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB), including Reliable Digit Span (RDS), as no published papers have examined embedded digit span validity indicators within these subtests of the NAB. Retrospective archival chart review was conducted at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants were 92 adults (ages 19-68) who completed NAB Digits Forward and Digits Backward, and the Word Choice Test (WCT). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, t-tests, and sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted. Analyses showed that RDS demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy between those who passed the WCT and those who did not. The area under the curve (AUC) value for RDS was 0.702; however, AUC values for all other digit span indices were unacceptably low. The optimal cutoff for RDS was identified (<8). RDS for the NAB appears to be an adequate indicator of performance validity; however, considering the very small number of participants who were invalid on the WCT (n = 15), as well as the utilization of only one stand-alone PVT to classify validity status, these findings are preliminary and in need of replication.

The Development and Validation of the Embedded Validity Indicator for the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an embedded measure of performance validity within the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB). METHOD: This study involved a retrospective chart review at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants were 183 adults (ages 18-70) who completed the attention and memory modules of the NAB, as well as the Word Choice Test, Green's Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and Green's Non-Verbal MSVT, as part of a clinical neuropsychological assessment (n = 147) or as part of a forensic neuropsychological evaluation (n = 36). Replicating methodology utilized by Silverberg et al. (2007) for the development of the Effort Index within the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, an Embedded Validity Indictor (EVI) for the NAB was developed in the present study based on Digits Forward and List Learning Long Delayed Forced-Choice Recognition (list recognition) subtests. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses indicated the newly developed NAB EVI was able to significantly differentiate between valid and invalid status on stand-alone performance-validity tests, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.797 to 0.977. Optimal cutoffs for medical, forensic, and mixed samples were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed NAB EVI shows promise as an embedded performance validity measure; however, due to moderate sensitivity, it should be used in combination with stand-alone performance validity tests to detect invalid performance.

Initial Validation of the Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center Assessment of Traumatic Brain Injury.

With the increasing prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI), the need for reliable and valid methods to evaluate TBI has also increased. The purpose of this study was to establish the validity and reliability of a new comprehensive assessment of TBI, the Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) Assessment of TBI (MMA-TBI). The participants in this study were post-deployment, combat exposed veterans. First, MMA-TBI outcomes were compared with those of independently conducted clinical TBI assessments. Next, MMA-TBI outcomes were compared with those of a different validated TBI measure (the Ohio State University TBI Identification method [OSU-TBI-ID]). Next, four TBI subject matter experts independently evaluated 64 potential TBI events based on both clinical judgment and Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Results of the MMA-TBI algorithm (based on VA/DoD clinical guideline) were compared with those of the subject matter experts. Diagnostic correspondence with independently conducted expert clinical evaluation was 96% for lifetime TBI and 92% for deployment-acquired TBI. Consistency between the MMA-TBI and the OSU-TBI-ID was high (κ = 0.90; Kendall Tau = 0.94). Comparison of MMA-TBI algorithm results with those of subject matter experts was high (κ = 0.97-1.00). The MMA-TBI is the first TBI interview to be validated against an independently conducted clinical TBI assessment. Overall, results demonstrate the MMA-TBI is a highly valid and reliable instrument for determining TBI based on VA/DoD clinical guidelines. These results support the need for application of standardized TBI criteria across all diagnostic contexts.

Cost of malingering mild traumatic brain injury-related cognitive deficits during compensation and pension evaluations in the veterans benefits administration.

Given the high rates of exaggeration in those claiming long-term cognitive deficits as a result of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), the aim of this study was to evaluate the rates of malingering in those seeking disability through the Veterans Benefits Administration and estimate the financial burden of disability payments for those receiving compensation despite exaggerated mTBI-related cognitive deficits. Retrospective review included 74 veterans seen for Compensation and Pension evaluations for mTBI. Rates of malingering were based on failure of the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and/or the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) trial 1 ≤ 40. Total estimated compensation was based on the level of disability awarded and the number of individuals found to be malingering cognitive deficits. Overall, 33-52% of the sample was found to be malingering mTBI-related cognitive deficits. The malingering groups were receiving approximately $71,000-$121,000/year ($6,390-$7,063 per year, per veteran on average). Estimated nationwide disability payments for those possibly malingering mTBI-related cognitive deficits would be $136-$235 million/year (projected costs from 2015-2020 = $700 million-$1.2 billion). It is critical that providers and administrative officials identify those exaggerating disability claims attributed to mTBI. The cost of malingering impacts society in general as well as veterans themselves, as it diverts needed funds/resources away from those legitimately impaired by their military service.

Evaluating the motor slowing hypothesis of depression.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that processing speed deficits are the primary cognitive deficits in those with depression, consistent with the motor slowing hypothesis. Participants (n=223) were research volunteers who served in the US military since September 11, 2001, and denied a history of significant brain injuries. Depression was measured using a structured interview, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Outcomes included performance on 10 processing speed variables. Invalid performance/report accounted for significant variance for 8 of 10 processing speed measures. There was not a consistent pattern of slowed processing speed in those with current depressive diagnoses compared to those without. However, depression symptom burden per the PAI Depression scale was significant for 7 of 10 processing speed tests. Only non-dominant fine motor dexterity was significantly slower in those with high versus low burden using BDI-II quartiles. Thus, the motor slowing hypothesis was supported, but only for depression burden and not diagnostic status or high versus low categorical classification. These results underscore the importance of validity assessment and consideration of how one measures psychiatric constructs when evaluating relations among symptoms and cognition.

Personality Assessment Inventory profiles of veterans: Differential effects of mild traumatic brain injury and psychopathology.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric complaints often accompany mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), a common condition in post-deployed Veterans. Self-report, multi-scale personality inventories may elucidate the pattern of psychiatric distress in this cohort. This study investigated valid Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) profiles in post-deployed Veterans. METHOD: Measures of psychopathology and mTBI were examined in a sample of 144 post-deployed Veterans divided into groups: healthy controls (n = 40), mTBI only (n = 31), any mental health diagnosis only (MH; n = 25), comorbid mTBI and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (mTBI/PTSD; n = 23), and comorbid mTBI, PTSD, and other psychological diagnoses (mTBI/PTSD/MDD+; n = 25). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the mTBI and the control group on mean PAI subscale elevation, or number of subscale elevations above 60T or 70T. The other three groups had significantly higher overall mean scores, and more elevations above 60 and 70T compared to both controls and mTBI only. The mTBI/PTSD/MDD+ group showed the highest and most elevations. After entering demographics, PTSD, and number of other psychological diagnoses into hierarchical regressions using the entire sample, mTBI history did not predict mean PAI subscale score or number of elevations above 60T or 70T. PTSD was the only significant predictor. There were no interaction effects between mTBI and presence of PTSD, or between mTBI and total number of diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that mTBI alone is not uniquely related to psychiatric distress in Veterans, but that PTSD accounts for self-reported symptom distress.