| Evaluating constructs represented by symptom validity tests in forensic neuropsychological assessment of traumatic brain injury. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 19333066 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
This study uses a new method to summarize diagnostic validity information to explore which constructs are captured by malingering tests. The Test Validation Summary applies mixed-groups validation to investigate the meaning of test constructs and to estimate test classification characteristics when test validation groups are not "pure" criterion groups (ie, "compliant" vs "malingering"), but members have variable probability of malingering. The method permits the use of tests with relatively low validity to validate tests of greater validity. In our initial analysis, we argue that the Rey 15-Item Memory Test is best construed as an "intention test" (capturing the intention of testtakers when taking a test) as opposed to an "effort test." Using the Test Validation Summary and mixed-groups validation, we demonstrate that as an indicator of "intention to feign cognitive impairment," the Rey 15-Item Memory Test has estimated false-positive rate (FPR) = 0.02 and true-positive rate (TPR) = 0.57. We then explore the meaning of failure on the Word Memory Test (WMT), which uses a dichotomous classification of performance as valid or invalid. Although the WMT is commonly referred to as an "effort test," we argue that it likely captures both "intention" and "effort" but collapses this information into a single dichotomous classification of symptom validity. We demonstrate that, as a result of this dichotomous classification process, the WMT likely has a problematic FPR. In our analysis of previously published WMT data, the WMT FPR is estimated at 0.12 when there is no predisposition to perform poorly but rises dramatically and unrealistically as the predisposition to perform poorly increases. We compare these findings to those of the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP), which captures both intent and effort to classify 4 different sorts of response styles in cognitive testing. In our analyses, the VIP demonstrates that FPR = 0 and TPR = 0.86 when the construct being measured is "intent to perform poorly," and reveals that FPR = 0.06 and TPR = 0.63 when the construct being measured is "inconsistent responding" or "poor effort." We were able to demonstrate for the VIP the same "oversensitivity" shown by the WMT when the VIP was interpreted only as a dichotomous classification test. These results indicate that researchers who attempt to generate classification characteristics for malingering tests must carefully consider what constructs are being captured by the test. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Richard I Frederick; Stephen C Bowden |
Related Documents
:
|
19527076 - Adaptation and validation of the bristol scale stool form translated into the spanish l... 21843806 - Occupational exposure characterization in professional sprayers: clinical utility of ox... 18554426 - Validity and reliability of the dutch version of the camberwell assessment of need for ... 20568326 - The professionalism and environmental factors in the workplace questionnaire: developme... 20618666 - Laboratory and field testing of bednet traps for mosquito (diptera: culicidae) sampling... 19402856 - International collaborative study to evaluate candidate reference reagents to standardi... |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation Volume: 24 ISSN: 1550-509X ISO Abbreviation: J Head Trauma Rehabil Publication Date: 2009 Mar-Apr |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2009-03-31 Completed Date: 2009-07-02 Revised Date: 2009-07-06 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 8702552 Medline TA: J Head Trauma Rehabil Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 105-22 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Department of Psychology, US Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri 65807, USA. rickfrederick@gmail.com |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Brain Injuries
/
psychology,
rehabilitation* Cognition Disorders / diagnosis*, psychology Disability Evaluation Forensic Medicine Humans Intention Malingering / diagnosis*, psychology Memory Disorders / diagnosis Neuropsychological Tests / standards* Neuropsychology Reproducibility of Results |
| Comments/Corrections | |
Comment In:
|
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009 Mar-Apr;24(2):131-40
[PMID:
19333068
]
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Forensic neuropsychological evaluations in an academic medical center.
Next Document: SLAM on the stand: how the sports-related concussion literature can inform the expert witness.