Validation of alternative dot counting test E-score cutoffs based on degree of cognitive impairment in veteran and civilian clinical samples.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined Dot Counting Test (DCT) performance among patient populations with no/minimal impairment and mild impairment in an attempt to cross-validate a more parsimonious interpretative strategy and to derive optimal E-Score cutoffs. METHOD: Participants included clinically-referred patients from VA (n = 101) and academic medical center (AMC, n = 183) settings. Patients were separated by validity status (valid/invalid), and subsequently two comparison groups were formed from each sample's valid group. Namely, Group 1 included patients with no to minimal cognitive impairment, and Group 2 included those with mild neurocognitive disorder. Analysis of variance tested for differences between rounded and unrounded DCT E-Scores across both comparison groups and the invalid group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses identified optimal validity cut-scores for each sample and stratified by comparison groups. RESULTS: In the VA sample, cut scores of ≥13 (rounded) and ≥12.58 (unrounded) differentiated Group 1 from the invalid performers (87% sensitivity/88% specificity), and cut scores of ≥17 (rounded; 58% sensitivity/90% specificity) and ≥16.49 (unrounded; 61% sensitivity/90% specificity) differentiated Group 2 from the invalid group. Similarly, in the AMC group, a cut score of ≥13 (rounded and unrounded; 75% sensitivity/90% specificity) differentiated Group 1 from the invalid group, whereas cut scores of ≥18 (rounded; 43% sensitivity/94% specificity) and ≥16.94 (unrounded; 46% sensitivity/90% specificity) differentiated Group 2 from the invalid performers. CONCLUSIONS: Different cut scores were indicated based on degree of cognitive impairment, and provide proof-of-concept for a more parsimonious interpretative paradigm than using individual cut scores derived for specific diagnostic groups.

Cross-validating the Dot Counting Test Among an Adult ADHD Clinical Sample and Analyzing the Effect of ADHD Subtype and Comorbid Psychopathology.

This study cross-validated the dot counting test (DCT) as a performance validity test (PVT) in an adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinical population and examined the effect of ADHD subtype and psychiatric comorbidity on accuracy for detecting invalidity. DCT performance was assessed among 210 consecutive adult ADHD referrals who underwent neuropsychological evaluation and were classified into valid (n = 175) or invalid (n = 35) groups based on seven independent criterion PVTs. The invalid group had significantly worse DCT performance than the valid group using both the standard and unrounded scoring procedure (ηp2=.28). Classification accuracy was excellent, with 54.3% sensitivity/92% specificity at optimal cut-scores of ≥14 (rounded) and ≥13.38 (unrounded). Nonsignificant DCT performance differences emerged based on ADHD subtype or the presence/absence of comorbid psychopathology. The DCT functions well as a nonmemory-based PVT in an ethnoracially diverse ADHD population, supporting its clinical utility for detecting invalid neurocognitive performance during ADHD evaluations.

All of the accuracy in half of the time: Assessing abbreviated versions of the Test of Memory Malingering in the context of verbal and visual memory impairment.

ObjectiveThe Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 (T1) and errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1-e10) were developed as briefer versions of the TOMM to minimize evaluation time and burden, although the effect of genuine memory impairment on these indices is not well established. This study examined whether increasing material-specific verbal and visual memory impairment affected T1 and T1-e10 performance and accuracy for detecting invalidity. Method: Data from 155 neuropsychiatric patients administered the TOMM, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) during outpatient evaluation were examined. Valid (N = 125) and invalid (N = 30) groups were established by four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal/visual memory impairment was classified as ≥37 T (normal memory); 30 T-36T (mild impairment); and ≤29 T (severe impairment). Results: Overall, T1 had outstanding accuracy, with 77% sensitivity/90% specificity. T1-e10 was less accurate but had excellent discriminability, with 60% sensitivity/87% specificity. T1 maintained excellent accuracy regardless of memory impairment severity, with 77% sensitivity/≥88% specificity and a relatively invariant cut-score even among those with severe verbal/visual memory impairment. T1-e10 had excellent classification accuracy among those with normal memory and mild impairment, but accuracy and sensitivity dropped with severe impairment and the optimal cut-score had to be increased to maintain adequate specificity. Conclusion: TOMM T1 is an effective performance validity test with strong psychometric properties regardless of material-specificity and severity of memory impairment. By contrast, T1-e10 functions relatively well in the context of mild memory impairment but has reduced discriminability with severe memory impairment.