Effect of processing speed and memory performance on classification accuracy of the dot counting test in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of impairment in two specific cognitive abilities, processing speed and memory, on Dot Counting Test (DCT) classification accuracy by evaluating performance validity classification accuracy across cognitively unimpaired, single-domain impairment, and multidomain impairment subgroups within a mixed clinical sample. METHOD: Cross-sectional data were analyzed from 348 adult outpatients classified as valid (n = 284) or invalid (n = 64) based on four independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Unimpaired (n = 164), single-domain processing speed impairment (n = 24), single-domain memory impairment (n = 53), and multidomain processing speed and memory impairment (n = 43) clinical subgroups were established among the valid group. Both the traditional DCT E-score and unrounded E-score were examined. RESULTS: Overall, the DCT demonstrated acceptable to excellent classification accuracy across the unimpaired (area under the curve [AUC] traditional E-score=.855; unrounded E-score=.855) and single-domain impairment groups (traditional E-score AUCs = .690-.754; unrounded E-score AUCs = .692-747). However, it did not reliably discriminate the multidomain processing speed and memory impairment group from the invalid performers (traditional and unrounded E-scores AUC = .557). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the DCT as a non-memory-based freestanding PVT for use with single-domain cognitive impairment, with traditional E-score ≥17 (unrounded E-score ≥16.95) recommended for those with memory impairment and traditional E-score ≥19 (unrounded ≥18.08) with processing speed impairment. Moreover, results replicated previously established optimal cutoffs for unimpaired groups using both the traditional (≥14) and unrounded (≥13.84) E-scores. However, the DCT did not reliably discriminate between invalid performance and multidomain cognitive impairment, indicating caution is warranted when using the DCT with patients suspected of greater cognitive impairment.

Neuropsychological Test Performance Differentiates Subgroups of Individuals With Adult Moyamoya Disease: A Cross-Sectional Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a rare noninflammatory disorder involving progressive intracranial vasculopathy and impaired cerebral blood flow in the anterior circulation, resulting in stroke and cognitive impairment. We aimed to characterize cognitive impairment and the possible predictive value of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with MMD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined neurocognitive performance in a group of 42 consecutive adult patients (mean age = 40.52 years; 69% female) referred for a presurgical neuropsychological evaluation. Neuropsychological functioning was assessed with a comprehensive battery, and cognitive dysfunction was defined as 1.5 SDs below the mean. Neurocognitive performance correlated with clinical/demographic characteristics and disease markers. RESULTS: Most patients (91%) had a history of stroke, and 45% had cognitive deficits, most notably on measures of attention/speed (48%), executive functioning (47%), visuoconstruction (41%), and memory (31%-54%). Only higher educational attainment and poor collateral blood flow in the right hemisphere differentiated cognitively impaired (n = 19) and intact groups (n = 23), and MMD-related characteristics (eg, disease duration, stroke history) did not differentiate the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous work, frontal-subcortical cognitive deficits (eg, deficits in mental speed, attention, executive functioning) were found in nearly half of patients with MMD and better cognitive performance was associated with factors related to cognitive reserve. Angiographic metrics of disease burden (eg, Suzuki rating, collateral flow) and hemodynamic reserve were not consistently associated with poorer cognitive outcomes, suggesting that cognition is a crucial independent factor to assess in MMD and has relevance for treatment planning and functional status.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Profiles Among Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Examining the Effect of Comorbid Psychopathology and ADHD Presentation.

OBJECTIVE: Despite widespread use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), it is surprisingly understudied among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This is significant as ADHD is a frequent referral for neuropsychological evaluation; however, the core symptom of attention difficulty is a nonspecific sequela of many psychological disorders. This study aimed to characterize MMPI-2-RF profiles among adults with ADHD and examine the effect of comorbid psychopathology. METHOD: A large, demographically diverse sample of 413 consecutive adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation to assist with differential diagnosis of ADHD who completed the MMPI-2-RF was examined. Profiles of the 145 patients diagnosed with ADHD-only were compared to 192 with ADHD and a comorbid psychological disorder and a 55-patient non-ADHD psychiatric comparison group. Among the ADHD-only group, profiles also were compared based on ADHD-presentation type (Predominantly Inattentive vs. Combined presentation). RESULTS: The ADHD/psychopathology and psychiatric comparison groups scored higher than the ADHD-only group across nearly all scales with widespread clinical elevations. Conversely, the ADHD-only group displayed an isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. Comparison between ADHD presentations revealed several small-moderate significant differences, the largest of which occurred on the Externalizing and Interpersonal scales. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD alone, and no other psychopathology have a unique MMPI-2-RF profile characterized by isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. These results support use of the MMPI-2-RF in assessment of adults with ADHD as it can help distinguish ADHD alone from ADHD/comorbid psychopathology and identify relevant psychiatric comorbidities that may be contributing to patients' inattention complaints.

Does comorbid depression impact executive functioning (EF) in adults diagnosed with ADHD?: a comparison of EF across diagnoses in clinically-referred individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Executive functioning (EF) is a salient factor in both ADHD as well as depressive disorders. However, sparse literature has examined whether depression severity impacts EF concurrently among adults with ADHD. The goal of this study was to examine differences in EF between adult patients diagnosed with ADHD and those diagnosed with a non-ADHD primary psychopathological condition, as a function of both ADHD presentation and depression severity in a diverse clinical sample. METHOD: This crosssectional study included 404 adult patients clinically referred for neuropsychological evaluation to assist with differential diagnosis and/or treatment planning related to known or suspected ADHD. Various EF tasks and a measure of depression severity were administered. One-way MANOVA analyses were conducted to compare EF performance between individuals diagnosed with ADHD or a non-ADHD primary psychopathological condition, with additional analyses examining group differences based on ADHD presentation and depression severity. Regression analyses also examined the potential contribution of depression severity to each EF measure within each group. RESULTS: No significant EF performance differences were found when comparing individuals diagnosed with ADHD and those with a non-ADHD primary psychopathological condition, nor based on ADHD presentation. When comparing across groups using cut-offs for high or low depression, only one EF measure showed significant differences between groups. Further, depression severity generally did not predict reduced EF performances with the exception of verbal fluency and working memory performances in select groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that individuals with ADHD generally perform comparably on EF measures regardless of the presence or absence of comorbid depression. These results suggest further examination of EF deficits when they emerge for adults with ADHD, especially beyond comorbid depression severity.

Assessment of learning and memory impairments in adults with predominately inattentive versus combined presentation attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

This cross-sectional study compared adults diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Inattentive (ADHD-I) and ADHD-Combined (ADHD-C) presentations with a non-ADHD group on verbal and visual learning and delayed recall using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), respectively. Data from 380 predominately college student adult outpatients were used, with 155 who met criteria for ADHD-I, 165 who met criteria for ADHD-C, and 60 who did not meet criteria for ADHD but were diagnosed with a primary depressive or anxiety disorder or received no diagnosis. Each patient was administered the RAVLT and BVMT-R as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Significant main effects of study group were found, such that patients with ADHD-C demonstrated worse learning and delayed recall of both verbal and visual information than patients with ADHD-I and the non-ADHD group. Patients with ADHD-I performed comparably to the non-ADHD group, apart from visual learning and delayed recall. Notably, more patients in the ADHD groups had possible or probable learning and memory impairment compared to the non-ADHD group. Findings were consistent with previous research indicating that those with ADHD exhibit poorer verbal and visual learning and delayed recall than those without ADHD.

Using the Grooved Pegboard Test as an Embedded Validity Indicator in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Validation Problems.

Embedded validity indicators (EVIs) derived from motor tests have received less empirical attention than those derived from tests of other neuropsychological abilities, particularly memory. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) may function as an EVI, but existing studies were largely conducted using simulators and population samples without cognitive impairment. In this study we aimed to evaluate the GPB's classification accuracy as an EVI among a mixed clinical neuropsychiatric sample with and without cognitive impairment. This cross-sectional study comprised 223 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological testing. GPB raw and T-scores for both dominant and nondominant hands were examined as EVIs. A known-groups design, based on ≤1 failure on a battery of validated, independent criterion PVTs, showed that GPB performance differed significantly by validity group. Within the valid group, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that only the dominant hand raw score displayed acceptable classification accuracy for detecting invalid performance (area under curve [AUC] = .72), with an optimal cut-score of ≥106 seconds (33% sensitivity/88% specificity). All other scores had marginally lower classification accuracy (AUCs = .65-.68) for differentiating valid from invalid performers. Therefore, the GPB demonstrated limited utility as an EVI in a clinical sample containing patients with bona fide cognitive impairment.

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.

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.

A Direct Comparison of 10 WAIS-IV Digit Span Embedded Validity Indicators among a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Degrees of Cognitive Impairment.

OBJECTIVE: Reliable Digit Span (RDS), RDS-Revised (RDS-R), and age-corrected scaled score (ACSS) have been previously validated as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV Digit Span subtest (WAIS-IV DS). However, few studies have directly compared the relative utility of these and other proposed WAIS-IV DS validity indicators within a single sample. METHOD: This study compared classification accuracies of 10 WAIS-IV DS indices in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample of 227 outpatients who completed a standardized neuropsychological battery. Participants with ≤1 PVT failures of the four, freestanding criterion PVTs constituted the valid group (n = 181), whereas those with ≥2 PVT failures formed the invalid group (n = 46). Among the valid group, 113 met criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). RESULTS: Classification accuracies for all DS indicators were statistically significant across the overall sample and subsamples with and without MCI, apart from indices derived from the Forward trial in the MCI sample. DS Sequencing ACSS, working memory RDS (wmRDS), and DS ACSS emerged as the most effective predictors of validity status, with acceptable to excellent classification accuracy for the overall sample (AUCs = 0.792-0.816; 35%-50% sensitivity/88%-96% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Although most DS indices demonstrated clinical utility as embedded PVTs, DS Sequencing ACSS, wmRDS, and DS ACSS may be particularly robust to cognitive impairment, minimizing risk of false positive errors while identifying noncredible performance. Moreover, DS indices incorporating data from multiple trials (i.e., wmRDS, DS ACSS) also generally yielded greater classification accuracy than those derived from a single trial.

Do demographic factors influence detection of invalid neuropsychological test performance using common performance validity tests? A multisite investigation.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the extent to which demographic variables (i.e., age, education, premorbid IQ, sex, ethnoracial identity, and presence/absence of external incentive) affect performance validity test (PVT) performance. METHOD: This cross-sectional study examined two distinct, diverse outpatient clinical samples at an academic medical center (AMC, N = 268) and a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center (N = 111). All patients completed a battery including five PVTs. Premorbid IQ was assessed using the Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) in the AMC sample. RESULTS: Multiple correlations between demographic variables and individual PVT performance were statistically significant, but accompanying effect sizes were small, except for the relationship of premorbid IQ and reliable digit span (RDS). Regressions showed demographic variables accounted for 7%-11% of the variance in individual PVT scores in the AMC sample, and 6%-26% in the VA sample, premorbid IQ driving results in the AMC sample and compensation-seeking status in the VA sample. Other demographic variables did not correlate with compensation-seeking status. Additionally, premorbid IQ was found to be significantly higher in validly performing individuals compared to those performing invalidly in the AMC sample. CONCLUSION: Most demographic factors evaluated accounted for relatively little variance in individual PVT performance and did not significantly predict overall validity categorization. Compensation-seeking status correlated with validity classification across both groups, but offers limited diagnostic utility itself compared to objective PVT scores. Premorbid IQ within the AMC group demonstrated influence on particular PVTs (i.e., RDS) reflecting the difficulty of assessing validity within low IQ populations, particularly with PVTs more strongly correlated with IQ. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Comprehensive Analysis of MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scales and Performance Validity Test Relationships in a Diverse Mixed Neuropsychiatric Setting.

The utility of symptom (SVT) and performance (PVT) validity tests has been independently established in neuropsychological evaluations, yet research on the relationship between these two types of validity indices is limited to circumscribed populations and measures. This study examined the relationship between SVTs on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and PVTs in a mixed neuropsychiatric setting. This cross-sectional study included data from 181 diagnostically and demographically diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions referred for outpatient clinical neuropsychological evaluation at an academic medical center. All patients were administered a uniform neuropsychological battery, including the MMPI-2-RF and five PVTs (i.e., Dot Counting Test; Medical Symptom Validity Test; Reliable Digit Span; Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1; Word Choice Test). Nonsignificant associations emerged between SVT and PVT performance. Although the Response Bias Scale was most predictive of PVT performance, MMPI-2-RF SVTs generally had low classification accuracy for predicting PVT performance. Neuropsychological test performance was related to MMPI-2-RF SVT status only when overreporting elevations were at extreme scores. The current study further supports that SVTs and PVTs measure unique and dissociable constructs among diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, consistent with literature from other clinical contexts. Therefore, objective evidence of symptom overreporting on MMPI-2-RF SVTs cannot be interpreted as definitively indicating invalid performance on tests of neurocognitive abilities. As such, clinicians should include both SVTs and PVTs as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation as they provide unique information regarding performance and symptom validity.

Multivariable analysis of the relative utility and additive value of eight embedded performance validity tests for classifying invalid neuropsychological test performance.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated a combination of eight embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) derived from commonly administered neuropsychological tests to optimize sensitivity/specificity for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate what combination of these common embedded PVTs that have the most robust predictive power for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance in a single diverse clinical sample. METHOD: Eight previously validated memory- and nonmemory-based embedded PVTs were examined among 231 patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. Patients were classified into valid/invalid groups based on four independent criterion PVTs. Embedded PVT accuracy was assessed using standard and stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Three PVTs, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised Recognition Discrimination (BVMT-R-RD), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Forced Choice, and WAIS-IV Digit Span Age Corrected Scaled Score, predicted 45.5% of the variance in validity group membership. BVMT-RD independently accounted for 32% of the variance in prediction of independent, criterion-defined validity group membership. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the incremental predictive power of multiple embedded PVTs derived from common neuropsychological measures in detecting invalid test performance and those measures accounting for the greatest portion of the variance. These results provide guidance for evaluating the most fruitful embedded PVTs and proof of concept to better guide selection of embedded validity indices. Further, this offers clinicians an efficient, empirically derived approach to assessing performance validity when time restraints potentially limit the use of freestanding PVTs.

Assessing performance validity during attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations: Cross-validation of non-memory embedded validity indicators.

Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) are key components of neuropsychological evaluations. However, most are memory-based and may be less useful in the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four non-memory-based validity indices derived from processing speed and executive functioning measures commonly included in ADHD evaluations, namely Verbal Fluency (VF) and the Trail Making Test (TMT), were cross-validated using the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall and Recall/Recognition as memory-based comparison measures. This consecutive case series included data from 416 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Validity classifications were established, with ≤1 PVT failure of five independent criterion PVTs as indicative of valid performance (374 valid performers/42 invalid performers). Among the statistically significant validity indicators, TMT-A and TMT-B T-scores (AUCs = .707-.723) had acceptable classification accuracy ranges and sensitivities ranging from 29%-36% (≥89% specificity). RFIT Recall/Recognition produced similar results as TMT-B T-score with 42% sensitivity/90% specificity, but with lower classification accuracy. In evaluating adult ADHD, VF and TMT embedded PVTs demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity values to those found in other clinical populations but necessitated alternate cut-scores. Results also support use of RFIT Recall/Recognition over the standard RFIT Recall as a PVT for adult ADHD evaluations.

A comparison of embedded validity indicators from the Stroop Color and Word Test among adults referred for clinical evaluation of suspected or confirmed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

This study investigated the utility of four Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT) indices, including the raw score and T score for the word reading (WR) and color naming (CN) trials, as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) within a sample referred for evaluation of suspected or known attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Data were analyzed from a final sample of 317 patients consecutively referred for ADHD evaluation, which was divided into groups with invalid (n = 43; 14%) and valid neuropsychological test performance (n = 274; 86%). A subset of the valid group with confirmed ADHD diagnoses (n = 226; 71%) were also analyzed separately. Classification accuracy for the overall valid sample was in the acceptable range (AUCs = .757-.794), with optimal cut scores of WR raw ≤75 (54% sensitivity/90% specificity), WR T score ≤ 28 (54% sensitivity/88% specificity), CN raw ≤57 (42% sensitivity/90% specificity), and CN T score ≤ 30 (40% sensitivity/90% specificity). Classification accuracy was also in the acceptable range for the ADHD-confirmed subgroup (AUCs = .750-.790), with optimal cut scores of WR Raw ≤ 75 (54% sensitivity/89% specificity), WR T score ≤ 28 (54% sensitivity/87% specificity), CN Raw ≤ 57 (42% sensitivity/90% specificity), and CN T score ≤ 30 (40% sensitivity/90% specificity). These findings indicate that embedded PVTs derived from the SCWT, particularly those derived from the WR trial, are effective measures for determining validity status in samples with suspected or confirmed ADHD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing the Independent and Aggregated Accuracy of Trial 1 and the First 10 TOMM Items for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance Across Civilian and Veteran Clinical Samples.

Previous studies support using two abbreviated tests of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), including (a) Trial 1 (T1) and (b) the number of errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1e10), as performance validity tests (PVTs). In this study, we examined the independent and aggregated predictive utility of TOMM T1 and T1e10 for identifying invalid neuropsychological test performance across two clinical samples. We employed cross-sectional research to examine two independent and demographically diverse mixed samples of military veterans and civilians (VA = 108; academic medical center = 234) of patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. We determined validity groups by patient performance on four independent criterion PVTs. We established concordances between passing/failing the TOMM T1e10 and T1, followed by logistic regression to determine individual and aggregated accuracy of T1e10 and T1 for predicting validity group membership. Concordance between passing T1e10 and T1 was high, as was overall validity (87-98%) across samples. By contrast, T1e10 failure was more highly concordant with T1 failure (69-77%) than with overall invalidity status (59-60%) per criterion PVTs, whereas T1 failure was more highly concordant with invalidity status (72-88%) per criterion PVTs. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated similar results, with T1 accounting for more variance than T1e10. However, combining T1e10 and T1 accounted for the most variance of any model, with T1e10 and T1 each emerging as significant predictors. TOMM T1 and, to a lesser extent, T1e10 were significant predictors of independent criterion-derived validity status across two distinct clinical samples, but they did not offer improved classification accuracy when aggregated.

The impact of visual memory impairment on Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance: A known-groups analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effect of visual learning and recall impairment on Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) accuracy and response latency for Easy, Difficult, and Total Items. METHOD: A sample of 163 adult patients administered the VSVT and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised were classified as valid (114/163) or invalid (49/163) groups via independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Classification accuracies for all VSVT indices were examined for the overall sample, and separately for subgroups based on visual memory functioning. RESULTS: In the overall sample, all indices produced acceptable classification accuracy (areas under the curve [AUCs] ≥ 0.79). When stratified by visual learning/recall impairment, accuracy indices yielded acceptable classification for both the unimpaired (AUCs ≥0.79) and impaired subsamples (AUCs ≥0.75). Latency indices had acceptable classification accuracy for the unimpaired subsample (AUCs ≥0.74), but accuracy and sensitivity dropped for the impaired sample (AUCs ≥0.67). CONCLUSIONS: VSVT accuracy and response latency yielded acceptable classification accuracies in the overall sample, and this effect was maintained in those with and without visual learning/recall impairment for the accuracy indices. Findings indicate that the VSVT is a psychometrically robust PVT with largely invariant cut-scores, even in the presence of bona fide visual learning/recall impairment.

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.

Assessment of differential neurocognitive performance based on the number of performance validity tests failures: A cross-validation study across multiple mixed clinical samples.

Objective: This cross-sectional study examined the effect of number of Performance Validity Test (PVT) failures on neuropsychological test performance among a demographically diverse Veteran (VA) sample (n = 76) and academic medical sample (AMC; n = 128). A secondary goal was to investigate the psychometric implications of including versus excluding those with one PVT failure when cross-validating a series of embedded PVTs. Method: All patients completed the same six criterion PVTs, with the AMC sample completing three additional embedded PVTs. Neurocognitive test performance differences were examined based on number of PVT failures (0, 1, 2+) for both samples, and effect of number of criterion failures on embedded PVT performance was analyzed among the AMC sample. Results: Both groups with 0 or 1 PVT failures performed better than those with ≥2 PVT failures across most cognitive tests. There were nonsignificant differences between those with 0 or 1 PVT failures except for one test in the AMC sample. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses found no differences in optimal cut score based on number of PVT failures when retaining/excluding one PVT failure. Conclusion: Findings support the use of ≥2 PVT failures as indicative of performance invalidity. These findings strongly support including those with one PVT failure with those with zero PVT failures in diagnostic accuracy studies, given that their inclusion reflects actual clinical practice, does not reduce sample sizes, and does not artificially deflate neurocognitive test results or inflate PVT classification accuracy statistics.

Concordance between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) over-reporting validity scales for detecting invalid ADHD symptom reporting.

This study investigated the relationship between symptom validity scales on the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in the context of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) evaluation. The sample comprised 140 consecutive patients referred for a neuropsychological evaluation of ADHD and were administered the CAT-A and the MMPI-2-RF and a battery of performance-based neurocognitive tests. Results indicated CAT-A/MMPI-2-RF symptom validity concordance of 51% between measures, with 38% concordant valid and 13% concordant invalid responses. Among those with discordance symptom validity results, rates of valid CAT-A/invalid MMPI-2-RF responding (41%) were more common than invalid CAT-A/valid MMPI-2-RF responding (8%). Results also indicated higher levels of ADHD symptoms among invalid responding within the CAT-A, whereas the MMPI-2-RF Cognitive Complaints scale did not differ by CAT-A validity status. Finally, symptom validity scales on both the CAT-A and MMPI-2-RF were largely discordant from neuropsychological test validity status per performance validity tests. Findings highlight the need for symptom validity testing when assessing ADHD and indicate that validity indices on broad personality assessments may assess different constructs than embedded validity indices in ADHD-specific measures.

Mean response latency indices on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test do not contribute meaningful predictive value over accuracy scores for detecting invalid performance.

The utility of the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) as a performance validity test (PVT) has been primarily established using response accuracy scores. However, the degree to which response latency may contribute to accurate classification of performance invalidity over and above accuracy scores remains understudied. Therefore, this study investigated whether combining VSVT accuracy and response latency scores would increase predictive utility beyond use of accuracy scores alone. Data from a mixed clinical sample of 163 patients, who were administered the VSVT as part of a larger neuropsychological battery, were analyzed. At least four independent criterion PVTs were used to establish validity groups (121 valid/42 invalid). Logistic regression models examining each difficulty level revealed that all VSVT measures were useful in classifying validity groups, both independently and when combined. Individual predictor classification accuracy ranged from 77.9 to 81.6%, indicating acceptable to excellent discriminability across the validity indices. The results of this study support the value of both accuracy and latency scores on the VSVT to identify performance invalidity, although the accuracy scores had superior classification statistics compared to response latency, and mean latency indices provided no unique benefit for classification accuracy beyond dimensional accuracy scores alone.