Establishing the base rate of performance invalidity in a clinical electrical injury sample: Implications for neuropsychological test performance.

Objective: The base rate of neuropsychological performance invalidity in electrical injury, a clinically-distinct and frequently compensation-seeking population, is not well established. This study determined the base rate of performance invalidity in a large electrical injury sample, and examined patient characteristics, injury parameters, and neuropsychological test performance based on validity status.Method: This cross-sectional study included data from 101 patients with electrical injury consecutively referred for post-acute neuropsychological evaluation. Eighty-five percent of the sample was compensation-seeking. Multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) were administered as part of standard clinical evaluation. For patients with four or more PVTs, valid performance was operationalized as less than or equal to one PVT failure and invalid performance as two or more failures.Results: Frequency analysis revealed 66% (n = 67) had valid performance while 29% (n = 29) demonstrated probable invalid performance; the remaining 5% (n = 5) had indeterminate validity. No significant differences in demographics or injury parameters emerged between validity groups (0 vs. 1 vs. ≥2 PVT failures). In contrast, the electrical injury group with invalid performance performed significantly worse across tests of processing speed and executive abilities than those with valid performance (ps< .05, ηp2 = .19-.25).Conclusions: The current study is the first to establish the base rate of neuropsychological performance invalidity in electrical injury survivors using empirical methods and current practice standards. Patient and clinical variables, including compensation-seeking status, did not differ between validity groups; however, neuropsychological test performance did, supporting the need for multi-method, objective performance validity assessment.

The relationship between neuropsychological dispersion, processing speed and memory after electrical injury.

Introduction: Previous studies of neuropsychological performance in electrical injury (EI) patients have produced evidence of deficits in various cognitive domains, but studies have yet to investigate relationships among performance in cognitive domains post-EI. This study examined whether dispersion among neuropsychological test scores was associated with injury parameters and neuropsychological performance in EI patients. Additionally, we examined whether dispersion, processing speed and/or executive abilities explain variance in episodic verbal and visual memory performance among EI patients.Method: Data from 52 post-acute EI patients undergoing outpatient evaluation with objectively-verified valid neuropsychological test performance were examined. Tests included measures of verbal and visual memory, processing speed, and executive functioning. Dispersion was calculated from executive functioning and processing speed scores.Results: Dispersion was not related to mean performance or injury characteristics, but was significantly negatively correlated with performance on a test of processing speed, suggesting that increased dispersion is associated with reduced cognitive efficiency post-EI. Delayed visual memory was related to both dispersion scores and processing speed. Stepwise regression equations predicting delayed memory determined that processing speed most significantly predicted delayed visual memory, even after controlling for immediate visual memory. No significant relationships emerged between verbal memory and non-memory neuropsychological scores.Conclusions: This is the first study to examine neuropsychological dispersion and relationships among domains of cognitive functioning in EI. Current results suggested that neuropsychological dispersion is not a marker of general functioning or severity of injury in EI patients, but may represent more specific processing speed abilities. Processing speed predicts delayed visual memory performance in EI patients, which should be considered in interpreting test scores during evaluations.

Examination of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity and substantive scales in patients with electrical injury.

Objective: Electrical injury (EI) is a distinct subtype of traumatic injury that often results in a unique constellation of cognitive sequelae and unusual sensory experiences due to peripheral nervous system injury that are uncommon in general medical/neurological populations and have been unexplored with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Method: This study examined performance patterns on MMPI-2-RF validity and substantive scales among 62 EI patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluation, of which 46 demonstrated valid symptom reporting and neurocognitive test performance via multiple independent validity indicators and were retained for analysis. Results: Valid EI patients scored significantly higher than the MMPI-2-RF normative sample on several validity scales with the largest effect sizes on F-r (Infrequent Responses), Fs (Infrequent Somatic Responses), FBS-r (Symptom Validity), and RBS (Response Bias), and ≥33% obtaining elevated scores on these scales per standard interpretive criteria. Review of item content on these scales revealed several reflect disturbances in sensation, physical functioning, and/or cognition that are not infrequent in this population. Further, MMPI-2-RF clinical profiles did not reveal generalized distress or noncredible over-reporting. Rather, similar to the MMPI-2, valid EI patients had a specific pattern related to physical/sensory symptoms and reduced positive emotions with elevations on restructured clinical (RC) scale 1 (somatic complaints), somatic/cognitive specific problem scales, and low positive emotions (RC2). Conclusions: Elevations on some MMPI-2-RF validity scale may capture some degree of actual EI sequela that neuropsychologists need to consider to prevent erroneously concluding that a credible EI patient is over-reporting when s/he is reporting bona fide, EI-related symptoms.