Logical memory, visual reproduction, and verbal paired associates are effective embedded validity indicators in patients with traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: This study was design to evaluate the potential of the recognition trials for the Logical Memory (LM), Visual Reproduction (VR), and Verbal Paired Associates (VPA) subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scales-Fourth Edition (WMS-IV) to serve as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs). METHOD: The classification accuracy of the three WMS-IV subtests was computed against three different criterion PVTs in a sample of 103 adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESULTS: The optimal cutoffs (LM ≤ 20, VR ≤ 3, VPA ≤ 36) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.33-.87) and specificity (.92-.98). An age-corrected scaled score of ≤5 on either of the free recall trials on the VPA was specific (.91-.92) and relatively sensitive (.48-.57) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. A VR I ≤ 5 or VR II ≤ 4 had comparable specificity, but lower sensitivity (.25-.42). There was no difference in failure rate as a function of TBI severity. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to LM, VR, and VPA can also function as embedded PVTs. Failing validity cutoffs on these subtests signals an increased risk of non-credible presentation and is robust to genuine neurocognitive impairment. However, they should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of an overall neurocognitive profile.

Take Their Word for It: The Inventory of Problems Provides Valuable Information on Both Symptom and Performance Validity.

This study was designed to compare the validity of the Inventory of Problems (IOP-29) and its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) in 150 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological assessment. Criterion groups were psychometrically derived based on established performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). The criterion-related validity of the IOP-29 was compared to that of the Negative Impression Management scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (NIMPAI) and the criterion-related validity of the IOP-M was compared to that of Trial-1 on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM-1). The IOP-29 correlated significantly more strongly (z = 2.50, p = .01) with criterion PVTs than the NIMPAI (rIOP-29 = .34; rNIM-PAI = .06), generating similar overall correct classification values (OCCIOP-29: 79-81%; OCCNIM-PAI: 71-79%). Similarly, the IOP-M correlated significantly more strongly (z = 2.26, p = .02) with criterion PVTs than the TOMM-1 (rIOP-M = .79; rTOMM-1 = .59), generating similar overall correct classification values (OCCIOP-M: 89-91%; OCCTOMM-1: 84-86%). Findings converge with the cumulative evidence that the IOP-29 and IOP-M are valuable additions to comprehensive neuropsychological batteries. Results also confirm that symptom and performance validity are distinct clinical constructs, and domain specificity should be considered while calibrating instruments.

Critical Item Analysis Enhances the Classification Accuracy of the Logical Memory Recognition Trial as a Performance Validity Indicator.

OBJECTIVE: : Replicate previous research on Logical Memory Recognition (LMRecog) and perform a critical item analysis. METHOD: : Performance validity was psychometrically operationalized in a mixed clinical sample of 213 adults. Classification of the LMRecog and nine critical items (CR-9) was computed. RESULTS: : LMRecog ≤20 produced a good combination of sensitivity (.30-.35) and specificity (.89-.90). CR-9 ≥5 and ≥6 had comparable classification accuracy. CR-9 ≥5 increased sensitivity by 4% over LMRecog ≤20; CR-9 ≥6 increased specificity by 6-8% over LMRecog ≤20; CR-9 ≥7 increased specificity by 8-15%. CONCLUSIONS: : Critical item analysis enhances the classification accuracy of the optimal LMRecog cutoff (≤20).

The V-5 provides quick, accurate and cross-culturally valid measures of psychiatric symptoms.

This study was designed to cross-validate the V-5, a quick psychiatric screener, across administration formats and levels of examinee acculturation. The V-5 was administered twice (once at the beginning and once at the end of the testing session) to three samples (N = 277) with varying levels of symptom severity and English language proficiency, varying type of administration, alongside traditional self-reported symptom inventories as criterion measures. The highest rest-retest reliability was observed on the Depression (.84) and Pain scales (.85). The V-5 was sensitive to the variability in symptom severity. Classification accuracy was driven by the base rate of the target construct, and was invariant across administration format (in-person or online) or level of English proficiency. The V-5 demonstrated promise as a cross-culturally robust screening instrument that is sensitive to change over time, lends itself to online administration, and is suitable for examinees with limited English proficiency.