Further examination of embedded performance validity indicators for the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and Brief Test of Attention in a large outpatient clinical sample.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing test performance validity is a standard clinical practice and although studies have examined the utility of cognitive/memory measures, few have examined attention measures as indicators of performance validity beyond the Reliable Digit Span. The current study further investigates the classification probability of embedded Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) within the Brief Test of Attention (BTA) and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II), in a large clinical sample. METHOD: This was a retrospective study of 615 patients consecutively referred for comprehensive outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Non-credible performance was defined two ways: failure on one or more PVTs and failure on two or more PVTs. Classification probability of the BTA and CPT-II into non-credible groups was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were derived to identify clinically relevant cut-off scores. RESULTS: When using failure on two or more PVTs as the indicator for non-credible responding compared to failure on one or more PVTs, highest classification probability, or area under the curve (AUC), was achieved by the BTA (AUC = .87 vs. .79). CPT-II Omission, Commission, and Total Errors exhibited higher classification probability as well. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings corroborate previous findings, extending them to a large clinical sample. BTA and CPT-II are useful embedded performance validity indicators within a clinical battery but should not be used in isolation without other performance validity indicators.

Implementation of the MEDFRAT to Promote Quality Care and Decrease Falls in Community Hospital Emergency Rooms.

ABSTRACTPURPOSE: To identify and implement an evidence-based fall-risk assessment tool for use in emergency departments at Essentia Health, a large, primarily rural health care delivery system with 12 emergency departments. METHODS: The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care was used to guide the process. The Memorial Emergency Department Fall-Risk Assessment Tool (MEDFRAT) was programmed into the electronic medical record, along with interventions that could be selected for 2 fall-risk levels. An education session was developed for emergency nurses about falls and MEDFRAT, with planned time for discussion about any concerns in the implementation of MEDFRAT. MEDFRAT was selected for implementation by nursing leadership because it is evidence based and appeared to be conducive to implementation in the diverse emergency departments across 12 sites in 3 states. RESULTS: Education sessions were presented to nurses at 11 of 12 emergency departments. Suggestions to support site-specific implementation were programmed into the electronic health record. Nurses expressed appreciation that they were consulted, and their feedback was incorporated into the tool before it was implemented. Resources needed at each site to implement recommended MEDFRAT interventions in the tool were identified. Needed resources were then provided to the emergency departments before implementation of MEDFRAT. CONCLUSIONS: The Iowa Model was a useful framework to select an evidence-based tool and then engage nurses in the process of implementing evidence-based practice changes in emergency departments across a diverse health care system serving a largely rural population. Ongoing follow-up will determine if this process results in fewer falls.