A randomized clinical trial of plasticity-based cognitive training in mild traumatic brain injury.

Clinical practice guidelines support cognitive rehabilitation for people with a history of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and cognitive impairment, but no class I randomized clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of self-administered computerized cognitive training. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a self-administered computerized plasticity-based cognitive training programmes in primarily military/veteran participants with a history of mTBI and cognitive impairment. A multisite randomized double-blind clinical trial of a behavioural intervention with an active control was conducted from September 2013 to February 2017 including assessments at baseline, post-training, and after a 3-month follow-up period. Participants self-administered cognitive training (experimental and active control) programmes at home, remotely supervised by a healthcare coach, with an intended training schedule of 5 days per week, 1 h per day, for 13 weeks. Participants (149 contacted, 83 intent-to-treat) were confirmed to have a history of mTBI (mean of 7.2 years post-injury) through medical history/clinician interview and persistent cognitive impairment through neuropsychological testing and/or quantitative participant reported measure. The experimental intervention was a brain plasticity-based computerized cognitive training programme targeting speed/accuracy of information processing, and the active control was composed of computer games. The primary cognitive function measure was a composite of nine standardized neuropsychological assessments, and the primary directly observed functional measure a timed instrumental activities of daily living assessment. Secondary outcome measures included participant-reported assessments of cognitive and mental health. The treatment group showed an improvement in the composite cognitive measure significantly larger than that of the active control group at both the post-training [+6.9 points, confidence interval (CI) +1.0 to +12.7, P = 0.025, d = 0.555] and the follow-up visit (+7.4 points, CI +0.6 to +14.3, P = 0.039, d = 0.591). Both large and small cognitive function improvements were seen twice as frequently in the treatment group than in the active control group. No significant between-group effects were seen on other measures, including the directly-observed functional and symptom measures. Statistically equivalent improvements in both groups were seen in depressive and cognitive symptoms.

The Impact of Self-Efficacy and Health Locus of Control on Performance Validity Testing.

OBJECTIVE: Recent research has examined potential influences to performance validity testing beyond intentional feigning. The current study sought to examine the hypothesized relationships of two psychological constructs (self-efficacy and health locus of control) with performance validity testing (PVT). METHOD: Retrospective review of 158 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) cases referred to an Army outpatient clinic for neuropsychological evaluation. The mTBI cases were classified according to passing or failing the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) or Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT). Group comparisons were performed utilizing one-way ANOVA to evaluate the differences between the PVT-Pass and PVT-Fail groups on self-efficacy (MMPI-2-RF Inefficacy scale) and locus of control (Multi-Dimensional Health Locus of Control). RESULTS: There was no relationship between self-efficacy or health locus of control and passing/failing PVTs. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is warranted to explore potential influences on PVT performance, which we conceptualize as analogous to experimental nuisance variables that may be amenable to intervention.

Clinical utility of the mBIAS and NSI validity-10 to detect symptom over-reporting following mild TBI: A multicenter investigation with military service members.

Self-report measures are commonly relied upon in military healthcare environments to assess service members following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). However, such instruments are susceptible to over-reporting and rarely include validity scales. This study evaluated the utility of the mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms scale (mBIAS) and the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory Validity-10 scale to detect symptom over-reporting. A total of 359 service members with a reported history of mTBI were separated into two symptom reporting groups based on MMPI-2-RF validity scales (i.e., non-over-reporting versus symptom over-reporting). The clinical utility of the mBIAS and Validity-10 as diagnostic indicators and screens of symptom over-reporting were evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive test rate, positive predictive power (PPP), and negative predictive power (NPP) values. An mBIAS cut score of ≥10 was optimal as a diagnostic indicator, which resulted in high specificity and PPP; however, sensitivity was low. The utility of the mBIAS as a screening instrument was limited. A Validity-10 cut score of ≥33 was optimal as a diagnostic indicator. This resulted in very high specificity and PPP, but low sensitivity. A Validity-10 cut score of ≥7 was considered optimal as a screener, which resulted in moderate sensitivity, specificity, NPP, but relatively low PPP. Owing to low sensitivity, the current data suggests that both the mBIAS and Validity-10 are insufficient as stand-alone measures of symptom over-reporting. However, Validity-10 scores above the identified cut-off of ≥7should be taken as an indication that further evaluation to rule out symptom over-reporting is necessary.

Clinical utility of the memory complaints inventory to detect invalid test performance.

OBJECTIVE: This investigation was designed to examine the classification statistics of Memory Complaints Inventory (MCI) scores relative to the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and the Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT), as well as various validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form(MMPI-2-RF). METHOD: The sample consisted of 339 active duty service members with a history of concussion who completed performance validity tests (PVTs), symptom validity tests (SVTs), and the MCI. RESULTS: Those who failed the MSVT and NV-MSVT had significantly higher scores across all MCI scales. In addition, those who scored above specified cut scores on the evaluated PAI and MMPI-2-RF validity scales also had significantly higher MCI scale scores. Receiver operator characteristics analysis demonstrated acceptable area under the curve (AUC) across the evaluated SVTs for the mean of all MCI subtests with values ranging from (.77 to .86), with comparable findings for PVTs (MSVT AUC = .75; NV-MSVT AUC = .72). CONCLUSIONS: In general the MCI scales demonstrated better classification statistics relative to SVTs vs. PVTs, which is consistent with the nature of the MCI as a self-report instrument.

Performance validity test and neuropsychological assessment battery screening module performances in an active-duty sample with a history of concussion.

The current retrospective investigation sought to replicate previous findings demonstrating the significant impact of performance validity test (PVT) performance and evaluation context on neuropsychological testing. We examined differences on performance validity testing between active-duty service members undergoing neurocognitive screening for concussion who were seen in a clinical context and those who were seen in a disability-seeking context, as well as the overall impact of PVT performance on a neurocognitive screening battery. Overall, 38.2% of the sample failed the Word Memory Test (WMT). Of those involved in a disability evaluation, the failure rate was 51.9%, which was significantly higher than the 36.8% failure rate among those evaluated in a clinical context. The effect size of WMT performance on a cognitive screening measure was also large. The current retrospective analysis served to replicate previous work.

Emotional distress affects attention and concentration: the difference between mountains and valleys.

The current study tests the hypothesis that the "mountains and valleys pattern" (MVP) observed within the Attention and Concentration domain of the Meyers Neuropsychological Battery reflects the interference of emotional distress/anxiety on the patient's cognitive test performance. First, the MVP was objectively quantified using a formula that took into account both increased and decreased scores, rather than canceling them out through averaging. Using a total sample of 787 subjects, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second Edition Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) profile scores of cases with and without this pattern were then compared using an extensive database followed by a smaller, matched-groups design. The presence of the MVP was related to MMPI-2-RF test performance. In particular, this pattern was related to emotional distress/anxiety scales but was not related to scales reflecting neurological or cognitive complaints. The degree of emotional distress experienced may affect attention and concentration test performance in a way that sometimes heightens focus and at other times disrupts focus. The MVP may be used to assess the effects of emotional distress on the consistency of an individual patient's attention and concentration test performance.

Relationships between eight measures of suspect effort.

Previous studies have recommended that multiple measures be employed concurrently to provide converging evidence regarding the presence of suspect effort during neuropsychological assessment. However, if the tests are highly correlated they do not represent independent sources of information. To date, no study has examined correspondence between effort tests. The present study assessed the relationships between eight measures which can be used to assess effort (Rey 15-item, Rey Dot Counting Test, Rey Word Recognition Test, RAVLT recognition trial, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test effort equation, Digit Span, Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words, and "b" Test) in a sample of 105 patients in litigation or attempting to obtain/maintain disability compensation and who displayed noncredible symptoms based on psychometric performance and behavioral criteria. Modest to moderate correlations were observed between test summary scores with only two measures sharing more than 50% score variance (Digit Span and Dot Counting). Moderate correlations were also observed between individual test scores reflecting indices of response time, free recall, recognition, and false positive errors, providing possible evidence that patients may use specific strategies when producing noncredible performances. Overall the results suggest that the use of these various tests generally provides nonredundant data regarding patient credibility in neuropsychological evaluations.