Comparing Cognitive Profiles in Older Adults With Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer Disease: More Similarities Than Differences.

Background and Objectives: Up to 65% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience disease-related cognitive impairment, but even after decades of research, still very little is known about the cognitive issues among older adults with MS (EwMS; individuals aged 60+). To date, few studies have attempted to characterize cognitive impairment in this group or compare EwMS with those with other neurodegenerative diseases. Our goal was to address this knowledge gap by comparing EwMS with individuals experiencing cognitive impairment due to probable Alzheimer disease (AD) with biomarker confirmation. Methods: We conducted an observational study of individuals seen for routine clinical care at the Cleveland Clinic. After excluding for potential confounding factors, 6 groups were assembled based on the results of their clinical workup and neuropsychological examination: cognitively normal, cognitively normal with MS, mild neurocognitive disorder (due to MS or AD), and major neurocognitive disorder (due to MS or AD). These groups were compared in terms of cognitive test performance, percentage of the group impaired on specific cognitive skills, and rates of cognitive impairment. Results: The sample comprised 140 individuals (64 EwMS and 76 demographically matched individuals from a memory clinic). Among those with mild neurocognitive disorder, differences between MS and AD were marked. However, in those with major neurocognitive disorder, these differences largely disappeared, except persistent performance differences on a measure of rote verbal memory. EwMS outperformed those with AD on memory tests at each level of cognitive impairment. EwMS also exhibited both subcortical and cortical deficits, rather than solely subcortical deficits. Discussion: The overall characterization of the cognitive profile of MS may be different than once described, involving both classically cortical and subcortical functions. Clinically, our results suggest that distinguishing between the cognitive effects of MS and AD at more severe levels of cognitive impairment may be less reliable than once thought. Future work to replicate these findings in other samples and deepen the understanding of cognition in older individuals with MS is needed.

Utility of the Brief Assessment of Cognitive Health (BACH) computerized screening tool in identifying MS-related cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that individuals with MS are screened annually for processing speed deficits, often using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). However, given the heterogeneity of cognitive deficits in individuals with MS, other screening measures that assess a range of cognitive domains are necessary. The current cross-sectional study aimed to examine the ability of the computerized, self-administered Brief Assessment of Cognitive Health (BACH) screening measure to detect the presence of cognitive impairment in adults with MS as determined by performance on a standard neuropsychological test battery. METHODS: Seventy-two individuals with MS completed the BACH and a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to investigate the ability of the BACH to identify cognitively impaired and cognitively intact individuals. ROC analyses were also conducted to compare the ability of the SDMT to discriminate between cognitively intact and cognitively impaired groups as a comparison with the BACH. RESULTS: Cognitive impairment was observed in 56 % of the sample. The BACH showed acceptable ability to discriminate between cognitively intact and cognitively impaired groups (AUC = 0.78). Additionally, the BACH was able to adequately predict cognitive impairment in domains other than processing speed (AUC = 0.71). The SDMT also demonstrated adequate utility in identifying individuals with cognitive impairment (AUC = 0.73); however, the SDMT was not able to adequately predict cognitive impairment in domains other than processing speed (AUC = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The BACH showed adequate ability to detect cognitive impairment in individuals with MS. The BACH was able to identify impairments across various assessed cognitive domains, including individuals with and without processing speed deficits.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Black and White individuals differ in dementia prevalence, risk factors, and symptomatic presentation.

INTRODUCTION: Although dementia prevalence differs by race, it remains unclear whether cognition and neuropsychiatric symptom severity differ between Black and White individuals with dementia. METHODS: Using National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) data, we evaluated dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black and White participants and compared their clinicodemographic characteristics. We examined race differences in cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and functional abilities in participants with dementia using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: We included 5,700 Black and 31,225 White participants across 39 Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers. Of these, 1,528 (27%) Black and 11,267 (36%) White participants had dementia diagnoses. Despite having lower dementia prevalence, risk factors were more prevalent among Black participants. Black participants with dementia showed greater cognitive deficits, neuropsychiatric symptoms/severity, and functional dependence. DISCUSSION: Despite lower dementia prevalence, Black participants with dementia had more dementia risk factors, as well as greater cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric symptom severity than White participants.

A Known-Groups Validation of the Medical Symptom Validity Test and Analysis of the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile.

This study cross-validated the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample and examined its accuracy for identifying invalid neuropsychological performance using a known-groups design. Cross-sectional data from 129 clinical patients who completed the MSVT were examined. Validity groups were established using six, independent criterion performance validity tests, which yielded 98 patients in the valid group and 31 in the invalid group. All MSVT subtest scores were significantly lower in the invalid group (ηp2=.22-.39). Using published cut-scores, sensitivities of 42% to 71% were found among the primary effort subtests, and 74% sensitivity/90% specificity was observed for the overall MSVT. Among this sample, the MSVT component validity scales produced areas under the curve of .78-.86, suggesting moderate classification accuracy. At optimal cut-scores, the MSVT primary effort validity scales demonstrated 55% to 71% sensitivity/91% to 93% specificity, with the Consistency subtest exhibiting the strongest psychometric properties. The MSVT exhibited relatively robust sensitivity and specificity, supporting its utility as a briefer freestanding performance validity test to its predecessor, the Word Memory Test. Finally, the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile appears promising for patients with Major Neurocognitive Disorder, but is cautioned against for those without significant functional decline in activities of daily living at this time.

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.

Examining Traditional and Novel Validity Indicators from the Medical Symptom Validity Test Across Levels of Verbal and Visual Memory Impairment.

OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study examined accuracy of traditional Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) validity indicators, including immediate recognition (IR), delayed recognition (DR), and consistency (CNS), as well as a novel indicator derived from the mean performance on IR, DR, and CNS across verbal, visual, and combined learning and memory impairment bands. METHOD: A sample of 180 adult outpatients was divided into valid (n = 150) and invalid (n = 30) groups based on results of four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal and visual learning and recall were classified as indicative of no impairment, mild impairment, or severe impairment based on performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, respectively. RESULTS: In general, individual MSVT subtests were able to accurately classify performance as valid or invalid, even in the context of severe learning and memory deficits. However, as verbal and visual memory impairment increased, optimal MSVT cut-scores diverged from manual-specified cutoffs such that DR and CNS required cut-scores to be lowered to maintain adequate specificity. By contrast, the newly proposed scoring algorithm generally showed more robust psychometric properties across the memory impairment bands. CONCLUSIONS: The mean performance index, a novel scoring algorithm using the mean of the three primary MSVT subtests, may be a more robust validity indicator than the individual MSVT subtests in the context of bona fide memory impairment.

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.

The Divergent Roles of Symptom and Performance Validity in the Assessment of ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined concordance between symptom and performance validity among clinically-referred patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Data from 203 patients who completed the WAIS-IV Working Memory Index, the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A), and ≥4 criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) were analyzed. RESULTS: Symptom and performance validity were concordant in 76% of cases, with the majority being valid performance. Of the remaining 24% of cases with divergent validity findings, patients were more likely to exhibit symptom invalidity (15%) than performance invalidity (9%). Patients demonstrating symptom invalidity endorsed significantly more ADHD symptoms than those with credible symptom reporting (ηp2 = .06-.15), but comparable working memory test performance, whereas patients with performance invalidity had significantly worse working memory performance than those with valid PVT performance (ηp2 = .18). CONCLUSION: Symptom and performance invalidity represent dissociable constructs in patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation of ADHD and should be evaluated independently.

Examining Conners Continuous Performance Test-3 (CPT-3) Embedded Performance Validity Indicators in an Adult Clinical Sample Referred for ADHD Evaluation.

This study evaluated multiple previously-identified Continuous Performance Test-Third Edition (CPT-3) scores as embedded validity indicators (EVIs) among 201 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) divided into valid (n = 169) and invalid (n = 32) groups based on seven criterion measures. Although 6/10 CPT-3 scores accurately detected invalidity, only two reached minimally acceptable classification accuracy of ≥0.70. The remaining four had unacceptably low accuracy (AUCs = 0.62-0.69) with 0.19-0.41 sensitivity at ≥0.90 specificity. Composite scores did not provide better classification accuracy than individual CPT-3 scores. In sum, CPT-3 individual and composite scores generally are not accurate PVTs among adults undergoing clinical evaluation for ADHD.

Psychometric implications of failure on one performance validity test: a cross-validation study to inform criterion group definition.

Introduction: Research to date has supported the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) for determining validity status in clinical settings. However, the implications of including versus excluding patients failing one PVT remains a source of debate, and methodological guidelines for PVT research are lacking. This study evaluated three validity classification approaches (i.e. 0 vs. ≥2, 0-1 vs. ≥2, and 0 vs. ≥1 PVT failures) using three reference standards (i.e. criterion PVT groupings) to recommend approaches best suited to establishing validity groups in PVT research methodology.Method: A mixed clinical sample of 157 patients was administered freestanding (Medical Symptom Validity Test, Dot Counting Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Word Choice Test), and embedded PVTs (Reliable Digit Span, RAVLT Effort Score, Stroop Word Reading, BVMT-R Recognition Discrimination) during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Three reference standards (i.e. two freestanding and three embedded PVTs from the above list) were created. Rey 15-Item Test and RAVLT Forced Choice were used solely as outcome measures in addition to two freestanding PVTs not employed in the reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated classification accuracy using the three validity classification approaches for each reference standard.Results: When patients failing only one PVT were excluded or classified as valid, classification accuracy ranged from acceptable to excellent. However, classification accuracy was poor to acceptable when patients failing one PVT were classified as invalid. Sensitivity/specificity across two of the validity classification approaches (0 vs. ≥2; 0-1 vs. ≥2) remained reasonably stable.Conclusions: These results reflect that both inclusion and exclusion of patients failing one PVT are acceptable approaches to PVT research methodology and the choice of method likely depends on the study rationale. However, including such patients in the invalid group yields unacceptably poor classification accuracy across a number of psychometrically robust outcome measures and therefore is not recommended.

Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A Systematic Review and Cross-Validation Study.

The Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) is a performance validity test (PVT) with over two decades of empirical backing, although methodological limitations within the extant literature restrict its clinical and research generalizability. Chief among these constraints includes limited consensus on the most accurate index within the VSVT and the most appropriate cut-scores within each VSVT validity index. The current systematic review synthesizes existing VSVT validation studies and provides additional cross-validation in an independent sample using a known-groups design. We completed a systematic search of the literature, identifying 17 peer-reviewed studies for synthesis (7 simulation designs, 7 differential prevalence designs, and 3 known-groups designs). The independent cross-validation sample consisted of 200 mixed clinical neuropsychiatric patients referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Across all indices, Total item accuracy produced the strongest psychometric properties at an optimal cut-score of ≤ 40 (62% sensitivity/88% specificity). However, ROC curve analyses for all VSVT indices yielded statistically significant areas under the curve (AUCs; .73-81), suggestive of moderate classification accuracy. Cut-scores derived using the independent cross-validation sample converged with some previous findings supporting cut-scores of ≤ 22 for Easy item accuracy and ≤ 40 for Total item accuracy, although divergent findings were noted for Difficult item accuracy. Overall, VSVT validity indicators have adequate diagnostic accuracy across populations, with the current study providing additional support for its use as a psychometrically sound PVT in clinical settings. However, caution is recommended among patients with certain verified clinical conditions (e.g., dementia) and those with pronounced working memory deficits due to concerns for increased risk of false positives.

Every second counts: A comparison of four dot counting test scoring procedures for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance.

Although performance validity tests (PVTs) are an integral element of neuropsychological assessment, most PVTs have historically been restricted to the memory domain. The Dot Counting Test (DCT) is a nonmemory PVT shown to reliably identify invalid performance. Although several traditional and abbreviated scoring methods have been derived, no study to date has directly compared the available scoring approaches within a single sample. This cross-sectional study cross-validated 4 different DCT scoring approaches, including the traditional rounded E-score proposed within the manual, an unrounded E-score, and 2 abbreviated scoring procedures based on 4- and 6-card versions (DCT-4 and DCT-6, respectively) in a diverse mixed clinical neuropsychiatric sample (N = 132). Validity groups were established by 5 independent criterion PVTs (102 valid and 30 invalid). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses yielded significant areas under the curve (AUCs = .84-.86) for the overall sample, with sensitivities of 50%-67% at ≥ 89% specificity. The DCT scores had outstanding classification accuracy (AUCs ≥ .92; sensitivities = 80%-83%) in the unimpaired group and excellent classification accuracy in the impaired group (AUCs = .79-.81; sensitivities = 43%-60%). Whereas negligible differences emerged between the 4 scoring methods for the cognitively intact group, the DCT-4 showed notably stronger psychometric properties among the overall sample in general and the mild cognitive impairment group in particular. Results corroborate previous findings suggesting that the DCT is a robust PVT, regardless of the employed scoring procedure, and replicate support for the abbreviated DCT-4 as the recommended validity indicator. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Out of sight, out of mind: The impact of material-specific memory impairment on Rey 15-Item Test performance.

This study examined the effect of increasing material-specific verbal and visual memory impairment severity on Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) and RFIT/Recognition Trial performance. Data from 146 clinically referred patients (109 valid/37 invalid) who completed the RFIT, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test were analyzed. Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test/BVMT memory impairment was operationalized as ≥40T (no memory impairment), 30T-39T (mild memory impairment), or ≤29T (severe memory impairment). Medium-to-large correlations emerged between the RFIT and memory measures. Significantly more patients with impaired visual memory, and to a lesser extent verbal memory, failed the RFIT and RFIT/Recognition. RFIT and RFIT/Recognition produced areas under the curve = .80-.90 for detecting invalidity and strong associated psychometric properties among patients without memory impairment, but both yielded low and largely unacceptable accuracy (areas under the curve = .57-.71) when verbal or visual memory impairment of any severity was present. In sum, RFIT performance was significantly affected by increasing material-specific memory deficits, such that it produced acceptable accuracy among unimpaired patients, but accuracy greatly diminished with memory impairment, which is antithetical to a sound performance validity test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).