The word reading test of effort in adult learning disability: a simulation study.

Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.
The Clinical Neuropsychologist (Impact Factor: 1.58). 07/2006; 20(2):315-24. DOI: 10.1080/13854040590947434
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Word Reading Test (WRT) was designed to detect effort problems specific to a learning disability sample. The WRT and the Word Memory Test (WMT) were administered to two simulator and normal control groups. The WRT showed excellent receiver operating characteristics (e.g., 90% sensitivity and 100% positive predictive power) and outperformed the WMT in detecting both reading and mental speed simulators. This finding and a double dissociation between reading and speed simulators on WRT errors and reaction time suggested specific effort effects while poor effort of simulators on the WMT suggested general effort effects. Results are supportive of the WRT as a potential effort indicator in learning disability.


Available from: David Osmon, Oct 28, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The measurement of functional impairment has become far more than an academic enterprise given the current demand for clinical evaluations of disability status. Individuals seeking access to legal accommodations in school or at work are pursuing assessments that establish their qualification as having a disability. To satisfy those requests, clinicians have to understand how the law defines disability and the level of documentation required to establish that an individual has a disability. These legal definitions of disability push clinicians to shift focus from the familiar terrain of symptom counts and psychological test scores to the less-well-tread path of assessing impairment in actual functioning.
    06/2009: pages 93-103;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although recent findings have indicated that a portion of college students presenting for psychoeducational evaluations fail validity measures, methods for determining the validity of cognitive test results in psychoeducational evaluations remain under-studied. In light of this, data are needed to evaluate utility of validity indices in this population and to provide base rates for students meeting research criteria for malingering and to report the relationship between testing performance and the level of external incentive. The authors utilized archival data from: (i) a university psychological clinic (n = 986) and (ii) a university control sample (n = 182). Empirically supported embedded validity indices were utilized to identify retrospectively suspected malingering patients. Group performance, according to invalidity and the level of incentive seeking, was evaluated through a series of multivariate mean comparisons. The current study supports classifying patients according to the level of incentive seeking when evaluating neurocognitive performance and feigned/exaggerated deficits.
    Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 11/2011; 27(1):45-57. DOI:10.1093/arclin/acr090 · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies have typically focused on the ability of cognitive symptom validity tests to identify cognitive symptom exaggeration in the context of head injury or memory loss. Few published studies have examined the detection of simulated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or reading disorder (RD). The present study examined the accuracy of symptom validity measures in the detection of simulated ADHD and RD. Results indicated that several commonly used symptom validity measures show good validity for detecting simulated ADHD and RD. Total Validity Indicator Profile (VIP) scores and hard item accuracy score from the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) were the most accurate at distinguishing simulation of ADHD and RD from adequate effort. Percentages of control participants and participants in simulation conditions scoring below a specified cut score are provided to give clinicians an estimate of the simulator (true) positive and control (false) positive rates.
    Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 09/2008; DOI:10.1016/j.acn.2008.04.001 · 1.92 Impact Factor