Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation? An interorganizational* position paper.

Objective: Some attorneys claim that to adequately cross examine neuropsychological experts, they require direct access to protected test information, rather than having test data analyzed by retained neuropsychological experts. The objective of this paper is to critically examine whether direct access to protected test materials by attorneys is indeed necessary, appropriate, and useful to the trier-of-fact. Method: Examples are provided of the types of nonscientific misinformation that occur when attorneys, who lack adequate training in testing, attempt to independently interpret neurocognitive/psychological test data. Results: Release of protected test information to attorneys introduces inaccurate information to the trier of fact, and jeopardizes future use of tests because non-psychologists are not ethically bound to protect test content. Conclusion: The public policy underlying the right of attorneys to seek possibly relevant documents should not outweigh the damage to tests and resultant misinformation that arise when protected test information is released directly to attorneys. The solution recommended by neuropsychological/psychological organizations and test publishers is to have protected psychological test information exchanged directly and only between clinical psychologist/neuropsychologist experts.

Forensic neuropsychology: History and current status.

Objective:This review provides a summary of historical details and current practice activities related to Forensic Neuropsychology (FN). Under the auspices of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), the Forensic Neuropsychology Special Interest Group (FNSIG) views the FN as a subspecialty, which has developed over time as the straightforward result of more than 20 years of numerous publications, extensive continuing education, focused research and growth of forensic practice within neuropsychology. In this article, the FNSIG core work group documents and integrates information that is the basis of efforts to consolidate practice knowledge and facilitate attainment of forensic practice competencies by clinical neuropsychologists. Method:Overview of continuing education topics at professional conferences, search results that identify relevant books and peer-reviewed publications, as well as pertinent findings across years of large-scale national survey results. Results:Relevant evidence has shown for decades that FN is prominent within Clinical Neuropsychology as practiced in the United States and Canada. A majority of U.S. neuropsychologists have received FN training and provide forensic evaluation services. FN practice time per week is considerable for many practitioners, and across survey epochs has been shown to be increasing. Conclusion:The present review leads to the conclusion that in the interest of promoting the acquisition of competence, FN practice should remain a focal point of training and continuing education. Alternate routes to attain competence are discussed, as are ongoing professional activities that undoubtedly will ensure continued growth of, and interest in, the subspecialty of FN.

Official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on test security.

To provide education regarding the critical importance of test security for neuropsychological and psychological tests, and to establish recommendations for best practices for maintaining test security in forensic, clinical, teaching, and research settings. Previous test security guidelines were not adequately specified. METHOD: Neuropsychologists practicing in a broad range of settings collaborated to develop detailed and specific guidance regarding test security to best ensure continued viability of neuropsychological and psychological tests. Implications of failing to maintain test security for both the practice of neuropsychology and for society at large were identified. Types of test data that can be safely disclosed to nonpsychologists are described.Specific procedures can be followed that will minimize risk of invalidating future use of neuropsychological and psychological measures.Clinical neuropsychologists must commit to protecting sensitive neuropsychological and psychological test information from exposure to nonpsychologists, and now have specific recommendations that will guide that endeavor.

Wait, There's a Baby in this Bath Water! Update on Quantitative and Qualitative Cut-Offs for Rey 15-Item Recall and Recognition.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of Rey 15-item plus recognition data in a large neuropsychological sample. METHOD: Rey 15-item plus recognition scores were compared in credible (n = 138) and noncredible (n = 353) neuropsychology referrals. RESULTS: Noncredible patients scored significantly worse than credible patients on all Rey 15-item plus recognition scores. When cut-offs were selected to maintain at least 89.9% specificity, cut-offs could be made more stringent, with the highest sensitivity found for recognition correct (cut-off ≤11; 62.6% sensitivity) and the combination score (recall + recognition - false positives; cut-off ≤22; 60.6% sensitivity), followed by recall correct (cut-off ≤11; 49.3% sensitivity), and recognition false positive errors (≥3; 17.9% sensitivity). A cut-off of ≥4 applied to a summed qualitative error score for the recall trial resulted in 19.4% sensitivity. Approximately 10% of credible subjects failed either recall correct or recognition correct, whereas two-thirds of noncredible patients (67.7%) showed this pattern. Thirteen percent of credible patients failed either recall correct, recognition correct, or the recall qualitative error score, whereas nearly 70% of noncredible patients failed at least one of the three. Some individual qualitative recognition errors had low false positive rates (<2%) indicating that their presence was virtually pathognomonic for noncredible performance. Older age (>50) and IQ < 80 were associated with increased false positive rates in credible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data on a larger sample than that available in the 2002 validation study show that Rey 15-item plus recognition cut-offs can be made more stringent, and thereby detect up to 70% of noncredible test takers, but the test should be used cautiously in older individuals and in individuals with lowered IQ.

Survey results regarding use of the Boston Naming Test: Houston, we have a problem.

Members of the National Academy of Neuropsychology were surveyed in 2005 to assess then current practices regarding Boston Naming Test (BNT) administration, interpretation, and reporting procedures. Nearly half of 445 respondents followed discontinuation rules that differed from instructions published with the test, and nearly 10% did not administer items in reverse order to achieve the required 8 consecutive item basal. Of further concern, between 40% and 55% of respondents indicated that they did not interpret BNT scores in light of linguistic and ethnic background, and over 25% reported that they did not consider educational level. Despite the fact that non-normal distribution of BNT test scores renders use of percentiles misleading, nearly 60% of respondents endorsed using percentiles when reporting BNT data. The implications of these results are discussed, and recommendations are provided.

Effectiveness of the Comalli Stroop Test as a measure of negative response bias.

Practice guidelines recommend the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) to detect noncredible performance during neuropsychological evaluations, and PVTs embedded in standard cognitive tests achieve this goal most efficiently. The present study examined the utility of the Comalli version of the Stroop Test as a measure of response bias in a large sample of "real world" noncredible patients (n = 129) as compared with credible neuropsychology clinic patients (n=233). The credible group performed significantly better than the noncredible group on all trials, but particularly on word-reading (Stroop A) and color-naming (Stroop B); cut-scores for Stroop A and Stroop B trials were associated with moderate sensitivity (49-53%) as compared to the low sensitivity found for the color interference trial (29%). Some types of diagnoses (including learning disability, severe traumatic brain injury, psychosis, and depression), very advanced age (⩾80), and lowered IQ were associated with increased rates of false positive identifications, suggesting the need for some adjustments to cut-offs in these subgroups. Despite some previous reports of an inverted Stroop effect (i.e., color-naming worse than color interference) in noncredible subjects, individual Stroop word reading and color naming trials were much more effective in identifying response bias.

Cross validation of the b Test in a large known groups sample.

The b Test (Boone, Lu, & Herzberg, 2002a) is a measure of cognitive performance validity originally validated on 91 non-credible participants and 7 credible clinical comparison groups (total n = 161). The purpose of the current study was to provide cross-validation data for the b Test on a known groups sample of non-credible participants (n = 212) and credible heterogeneous neuropsychological clinic patients (n = 103). The new data showed that while the original E-score cut-off of ≥ 155 achieved excellent specificity (99%), it was associated with relatively poor sensitivity (41%). However, the cut-off could be substantially lowered to ≥82, while still maintaining adequate specificity (≥90%) and raising sensitivity to 68%. Examination of non-credible subgroups revealed that b Test sensitivity in feigned mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) was 58%, whereas in non-credible patients claiming depression and psychosis, cut-off sensitivity was 76% and 67%, respectively. These data suggest that the b Test may have a particular role in detection of non-credible cognitive symptoms associated with feigned psychiatric symptoms, and that fabricated deficits in processing speed and vigilance/visual scanning, detected by the b Test, are more prominent in feigned psychiatric presentations than in feigned mTBI. Further, b Test failures in patients with somatoform disorders were common, indicating that the b Test may have a specific use in detection of non-consciously created cognitive dysfunction associated with somatoform conditions.

Re-examination of the Rey Word Recognition Test.

The Rey Word Recognition Test, a brief and simple to administer free-standing neurocognitive performance validity test, was examined in a large known-groups sample (122 credible patients and 134 non-credible patients). Total correctly recognized was the most sensitive score, identifying 54% of non-credible participants using a cut-off of ≤6, while maintaining specificity of approximately 90%. However, specifically rates were somewhat lower in credible individuals with <12 years of education or borderline intelligence, or who were bilingual (spoke English as a second language, or learned English concurrently with another language), indicating that cut-offs may require minor adjustment in these groups. Sensitivity rates were much higher in non-credible female versus male mild traumatic brain injury patients (mTBI; 68% versus 48% for total correct), suggesting that the Rey Word Recognition Test is particularly effective in identifying performance invalidity in female mTBI compensation seekers.

Use of the WAIS-III picture completion subtest as an embedded measure of response bias.

In the present study a large sample of credible patients (n = 172) scored significantly higher than a large sample of noncredible participants (n = 195) on several WAIS-III Picture Completion variables: Age Adjusted Scaled Score, raw score, a "Rarely Missed" index (the nine items least often missed by credible participants), a "Rarely Correct" index (nine items correct <26% of the time in noncredible participants and with at least a 25 percentage-point lower endorsement rate as compared to credible participants), and a "Most Discrepant" index (the six items that were the most discrepant in correct endorsement between groups-at least a 40 percentage point difference). Comparison of the various scores showed that the "Most Discrepant" index outperformed all the others in identifying response bias (nearly 65% sensitivity at 92.8% specificity as compared to at most 59% sensitivity for the other scores). While no differences in Picture Completion scores were observed between less-educated (<12 years) and better-educated (≥12 years) credible participants, noncredible participants with <12 years of education scored significantly poorer than noncredible participants with 12 or more years of education. On the "Most Discrepant" index, 76.7% of less-educated noncredible participants were detected as compared to 58.3% of better-educated noncredible participants. Results of the current study suggest that the Picture Completion subtest of the WAIS-III is an effective measure of response bias, and that it may have a unique role in identifying suboptimal effort in less-educated test takers.

The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations.

While most neuropsychologists are now administering measures of response bias in neuropsychological evaluations, it is still likely that detection of non-credible test performance is inadequate due to faulty assumptions regarding poor effort, namely that it remains constant across a battery of tests. Four cases are described that illustrate the variability in negative response bias that occurs during neuropsychological evaluations; if effort had not been periodically sampled with heterogeneous types of effort indicators during these examinations, the suspect performance would not have been detected. These examples argue for both continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort, specifically that negative response bias be routinely monitored throughout neuropsychological evaluations, and that effort indicators involving differing cognitive abilities be employed to assess for feigning of selective deficits.

Fixed belief in cognitive dysfunction despite normal neuropsychological scores: neurocognitive hypochondriasis?

A subset of patients who present for neuropsychological testing report dysfunction in daily life activities secondary to cognitive deficits, but are found on formal testing to have no objective abnormalities, raising the possibility of "neurocognitive hypochondriasis." Such a case is presented, and the factors that appear to give rise to this presentation are explored. Cases of hypochondriacal overconcern regarding cognitive function are likely not rare, particularly given research showing there is little correlation between objective report of cognitive dysfunction and actual test scores in such conditions as mild traumatic brain injury, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, toxic mold exposure, and post-polio syndrome.

The association between neuropsychological scores and ethnicity, language, and acculturation variables in a large patient population.

The relationship between ethnicity and cognitive test performance was examined in a sample of 161 patients referred for evaluation at a public hospital-affiliated neuropsychology clinic; 83 patients were Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 31 were African-American, 30 were Hispanic, and 17 were Asian. Significant group differences were present on some measures of language (Boston Naming Test), attention (Digit Span ACSS), constructional ability (Rey-Osterrieth [RO] copy), nonverbal processing speed (Trails A), and executive skills (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test [WCST]). Comparison of those who spoke English as a first language (or who learned English concurrently with a second language) versus those who spoke English as a second language (ESL) revealed significantly higher performance in the non-ESL group for Digit Span, Boston Naming Test, and FAS, and a higher score in the ESL group for RO copy. Boston Naming Test scores were significantly related to years educated in the United States; Boston Naming Test and Digit Span scores were significantly correlated with age at which conversational English was first learned and number of years in the United States; and finally, FAS scores were also significantly related to number of years in the United States. These findings are consistent with data from published literature on ethnic differences and the effects of acculturation on cognitive test performance in nonpatients, and also indicate that these observations are not attenuated by the presence of psychiatric or neurologic illness. The results further caution that normative data derived on Caucasian samples may not be appropriate for use with other ethnic groups.

Noncredible psychiatric and cognitive symptoms in a workers' compensation "stress" claim sample.

Information is lacking regarding the prevalence of fraudulent psychiatric and cognitive symptoms in the "stress" claim workers' compensation population. Using various validity indices (Negative Impression Scale, the Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function) of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), between 9 and 29% of 233 workers' compensation "stress" claim litigants were identified as exhibiting noncredible psychiatric symptoms. In addition, 15% of the subjects were determined to have noncredible cognitive symptoms on the Dot Counting Test, although only 8% displayed suspect effort on the 15-Item Memorization Test, with 5% of subjects failing both cognitive effort tests. The percentage of positive identifications on both a PAI and cognitive credibility index ranged from only 2 to 4%. Further, correlations between PAI validity indices and cognitive effort scales were nonexistent to modest, indicating that the psychiatric and cognitive credibility indices are measuring different aspects of noncredible symptom production. It was predicted that the PAI profiles of the participants displaying suspect cognitive symptoms would be elevated on the Somatic Concerns, Antisocial, and/or Borderline scales; however, elevations (relative to subjects with credible cognitive performance) were instead noted on the Somatic Concerns, Depression, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, and Schizophrenia scales.

The utility of the Rey Word Recognition Test in the detection of suspect effort.

The Rey Word Recognition Test potentially represents an underutilized tool for clinicians to use in the detection of suspect effort. The present study examined the predictive accuracy of the test by examining the performance of three groups of participants: (a) 92 noncredible patients (as determined by failed psychometric and behavioral criteria and external motive to feign), (b) 51 general clinical patients with no motive to feign, and (c) 31 learning disabled college students. Results demonstrated gender differences in performance that necessitated separate cutoff scores for men and women. Use of a cutoff score of < or = 7 words correctly recognized identified 80.5% of noncredible female patients while maintaining specificity of > 90%. However, to achieve this level of specificity in male noncredible patients, the cutoff score had to be lowered to < or = 5, with resultant sensitivity of only 62.7%. A combination variable (recognition correct minus false positive errors + number of words recognized from the first 8 words) showed enhanced sensitivity in identifying suspect effort in a subset of the noncredible sample who were claiming cognitive symptoms secondary to traumatic brain injury (i.e., cutoff score of < or = 9 = 81.6% sensitivity with 90% specificity). Results indicate that the Rey Word Recognition Test is an accurate and cost-effective method for the detection of noncredible cognitive performance.

Sensitivity and specificity of various digit span scores in the detection of suspect effort.

Digit Span Age-Corrected Scaled Score (ACSS) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS) have been suggested as effective in assessing credibility. The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy of suggested cutoffs for ACSS and RDS and to explore the utility of other Digit Span variables in a large sample (N = 66) of "real-world" > or = suspect effort patients versus clinic patients with no motive to feign (N = 56) and controls (N = 32). With specificity at > or = 90%, sensitivity of ACSS increased from 32% to 42% when a < or = 5 cutoff was used instead of the recommended < or = 4. The RDS recommended cutoff of < or = 7 resulted in a sensitivity of 62% but with an unacceptably high false positive rate (23%); dropping the cutoff to < or = 6 raised the specificity to 93% but sensitivity fell to 45%. Cutoffs for other Digit Span scores did not exceed 45% sensitivity with the exception of 50% sensitivity (11% false positive rate) for average time per digit for all attempted items > 1.0 second. A criterion of ACSS < or = 5 or RDS < or = 6 was associated with 51% sensitivity (91% specificity) while RDS < or = 6 or longest string with at least one item correct < or = 4 was associated with 54% sensitivity (88% specificity). While only moderately sensitive, Digit Span scores, including new time variables, may have a unique and effective role in the detection of suspect effort.

Sensitivity and specificity of finger tapping test scores for the detection of suspect effort.

Past studies indicate that patients with incentive to fake neuropsychological symptoms are likely to have lower finger tapping scores than credible patients. The present study builds upon past research by investigating finger tapping performance for seven groups: (a) noncredible patients (as determined by failed psychometric and behavioral criteria), and patients with (b) closed head injury, (c) dementia, (d) mental retardation, (e) psychosis, or (f) depression, and (g) healthy older controls. Results showed that men tapped faster than women, requiring that groups be divided by gender. Noncredible male and female patients tapped slower than their comparison group counterparts. Dominant hand score proved to be more sensitive to noncredible performance than other scores (nondominant, sum of both hands, difference between dominant and nondominant), especially for women. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value tables are presented. With specificity set at 90% for the comparison groups combined, a dominant hand cutoff score of

Comparison of various RAVLT scores in the detection of noncredible memory performance.

Sixty-one noncredible patients (as documented by psychometric and behavioral criteria) scored significantly below 25 controls and 88 credible clinic patients with no motive to feign on most RAVLT scores, including added indices of implicit and "automatic" memory. A combination of true recognition (i.e., recognition minus false positives) + implicit memory score (i.e., the number of word stems completed with RAVLT items) + "automatic" memory score (i.e., the number of correct temporal order judgments) < or =22 was associated with 75.7% sensitivity with specificity at 91.5%. However, sensitivity was nearly as high when scores available from the standard RAVLT administration alone (i.e., no word stem or temporal order trials) were combined. Specifically, a cut-off of < or =12 for true recognition (recognition minus false positives) + primacy recognition (i.e., number of words recognized from the first third of the test) was associated with 73.8% sensitivity at 90% specificity. These results indicate that combined indices of recognition memory from the RAVLT are effective in identifying noncredible memory performance in "real world" samples and are modestly superior to the 67.2% sensitivity obtained with the standard recognition score.

Failure to inhibit the reading response on the Stroop Test: a pathognomonic indicator of suspect effort.

We present 6 patients who displayed noncredible effort on neuropsychological testing (verified by failures on specialized measures designed to discreetly assess effort status and multiple behavioral inconsistencies) and complained of complete illiteracy secondary to impoverished educational history, learning disability, or acquired brain injury. The Stroop Test, a measure of a specific aspect of executive function requiring inhibition of an automatized oral reading response in favor of a less habitual, competing color-naming response, was administered to these patients. All six subjects claimed that they were unable to perform the Word-Reading trial as a consequence of total reading disability, but on the Color-Word Interference trial, they all committed "errors" by reading the written words. Five of the six subjects also performed substantially slower on the Interference condition relative to the Color-Naming trial, indicating that they were in fact inhibiting a reading response. However, in cases involving complaints of complete reading illiteracy, the observation of these individuals performing an act that they claimed to be unable to do was the most powerful and pathognomonic indicator of deliberate feigning or exaggeration of impairment in these cases.