Poor Performance Validity Predicts Clinical Characteristics and Cognitive Test Performance of OEF/OIF/OND Veterans in a Research Setting.
ABSTRACT This study examined the performance of 198 Veteran research participants deployed during Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and/or Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) on four measures of performance validity: the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), California Verbal Learning Test: Forced Choice Recognition (FCR), Reliable Digit Span (RDS), and TOVA Symptom Exaggeration Index (SEI). Failure on these performance validity tests (PVTs) ranged from 4% to 9%. The overall base rate of poor performance validity, as measured by failure of the MSVT in conjunction with an embedded PVT (FCR, RDS, SEI), was 5.6%. Regression analyses revealed that poor performance validity predicted cognitive test performance and self-reported psychological symptom severity. Furthermore, a greater prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), co-morbid TBI/PTSD, and other Axis I diagnoses, was observed among participants with poor effort. Although poor performance validity is relatively uncommon in a research setting, these findings demonstrate that clinicians should be cautious when interpreting psychological symptoms and neuropsychological test performance of Veteran participants who fail effort measures.
SourceAvailable from: Glenn Larrabee[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Twenty-nine litigants who met criteria for either definite or probable malingered neurocognitive dysfunction and reported chronic pain produced scores on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Pain Disability Index (PDI), and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) that were significantly higher than scores produced by large samples of clinical pain patients. At 0.90 specificity, the MPQ, PDI, and MSPQ yielded sensitivities of 0.21, 0.59, and 0.90, respectively. The MSPQ alone, correlated significantly with the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Overall, the MSPQ is superior to the MPQ and PDI for detection of exaggerated pain symptoms.The Clinical Neuropsychologist 09/2003; 17(3):395-401. DOI:10.1076/clin.17.3.395.18087 · 1.58 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The detection of suboptimal effort has become crucial in clinical neuropsychological practice in order to make accurate diagnoses, prognoses, and referrals. Symptom Validity Testing (SVT) has been the most commonly utilized model for assessing effort, and frequently includes recognition memory tasks. Some conflicting views on this model purport, however, that measures of effort gathered from a recognition memory paradigm do not necessarily extend to effort in other cognitive domains and other areas of performance. The present study sought to investigate whether performance on an SVT measure, which utilizes recognition memory, the TOMM, could predict performance on other measures that do not evaluate recognition memory or just memory per se in a group of mildly traumatic brain-injured litigants. Results indicated that poor performance on the TOMM was significantly correlated with poorer performance on the WAIS-R and the HRNB-A. Further, experimental exploration of these results indicated that the overall neuropsychological performance of litigants with suboptimal effort was poorer than what is generally expected from mild TBI individuals, and was also lower than the other mild TBI examinees in the study, who were not classified by the TOMM as exhibiting suboptimal effort. These findings support the proposition that poor effort as measured by recognition memory effort measures is not restricted to recognition and memory measures. In fact, in the present study it appears that a poor performance on the TOMM is predictive of a generalized poorer performance on standardized measures such as the WAIS-R and the HNRB-A.Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 04/2005; 20(2):191-8. DOI:10.1016/j.acn.2004.06.002 · 1.92 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To test the construct validity of the short-form version of the Depression anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21), and in particular, to assess whether stress as indexed by this measure is synonymous with negative affectivity (NA) or whether it represents a related, but distinct, construct. To provide normative data for the general adult population. Cross-sectional, correlational and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The DASS-21 was administered to a non-clinical sample, broadly representative of the general adult UK population (N = 1,794). Competing models of the latent structure of the DASS-21 were evaluated using CFA. The model with optimal fit (RCFI = 0.94) had a quadripartite structure, and consisted of a general factor of psychological distress plus orthogonal specific factors of depression, anxiety, and stress. This model was a significantly better fit than a competing model that tested the possibility that the Stress scale simply measures NA. The DASS-21 subscales can validly be used to measure the dimensions of depression, anxiety, and stress. However, each of these subscales also taps a more general dimension of psychological distress or NA. The utility of the measure is enhanced by the provision of normative data based on a large sample.British Journal of Clinical Psychology 07/2005; 44(Pt 2):227-39. DOI:10.1348/014466505X29657 · 1.90 Impact Factor