Poor Performance Validity Predicts Clinical Characteristics and Cognitive Test Performance of OEF/OIF/OND Veterans in a Research Setting

The Clinical Neuropsychologist (Impact Factor: 1.72). 04/2014; 28(5):1-24. DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2014.904928
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: William Milberg, Oct 26, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: (1) To examine the rate of poor performance validity in a large, multicenter, prospectively accrued cohort of community dwelling persons with medically documented traumatic brain injury (TBI), (2) to identify factors associated with Word Memory Test (WMT) performance in persons with TBI. This was a prospective cohort, observational study of 491 persons with medically documented TBI. Participants were administered a battery of cognitive tests, questionnaires on emotional distress and post-concussive symptoms, and a performance validity test (WMT). Additional data were collected by interview and review of medical records. One hundred and seventeen participants showed poor performance validity using the standard cutoff. Variable cluster analysis was conducted as a data reduction strategy. Findings revealed that the 10 cognitive tests and questionnaires could be summarized as 4 indices of emotional distress, speed of cognitive processing, verbal memory, and verbal fluency. Regression models revealed that verbal memory, emotional distress, age, and injury severity (time to follow commands) made unique contribution to prediction of poor performance validity. Poor performance validity was common in a research sample of persons with medically documented TBI who were not evaluated in conjunction with litigation, compensation claims, or current report of symptoms. Poor performance validity was associated with poor performance on cognitive tests, greater emotional distress, lower injury severity, and greater age. Many participants expected to have residual deficits based on initial injury severity showed poor performance validity.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · The Clinical Neuropsychologist
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: How neuropsychological assessment findings are deemed valid has been a topic of numerous articles but few have addressed any role that neuroimaging studies could provide. Within military and various clinical samples of individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluations, high levels of failure on measures of symptom validity testing (SVT) and/or performance validity testing (PVT) have been reported. Where 'failure' is defined as a below cut-score performance on some pre-determined set-point on a SVT/PVT measure, are such failures always indicative of invalid test findings or are there other explanations, especially based on informative neuroimaging findings? This review starts with the premise that even though the SVT/PVT task is designed to be simple and easy to perform, it nonetheless requires intact frontoparietal attention, working memory and task engagement (motivation) networks. If there is damage or pathology within any aspect of these networks as demonstrated by neuroimaging findings, the patient may perform below the cut-point as a result of the underlying damage or pathophysiology. The argument is made that neuroimaging findings should be considered as to where SVT/PVT cut-points are established and there should be much greater flexibility in SVT/PVT measures based on other personal, demographic and neuroimaging information. Several case studies are used to demonstrate these points.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · Brain Imaging and Behavior
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Embedded validity measures support comprehensive assessment of performance validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of individual embedded measures and to reduce them to the most efficient combination. The sample included 212 postdeployment veterans (average age = 35 years, average education = 14 years). Thirty embedded measures were initially identified as predictors of Green’s Word Memory Test (WMT) and were derived from the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II), Conners’ Continuous Performance Test-Second Edition (CPT-II), Trail Making Test, Stroop, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition Letter-Number Sequencing, Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, and the Finger Tapping Test. Eight nonoverlapping measures with the highest area-under-the-curve (AUC) values were retained for entry into a logistic regression analysis. Embedded measure accuracy was also compared to cutoffs found in the existing literature. Twenty-one percent of the sample failed the WMT. Previously developed cutoffs for individual measures showed poor sensitivity (SN) in the current sample except for the CPT-II (Total Errors, SN = .41). The CVLT-II (Trials 1–5 Total) showed the best overall accuracy (AUC = .80). After redundant measures were statistically eliminated, the model included the RCFT (Recognition True Positives), CPT-II (Total Errors), and CVLT-II (Trials 1–5 Total) and increased overall accuracy compared with the CVLT-II alone (AUC = .87). The combination of just 3 measures from the CPT-II, CVLT-II, and RCFT was the most accurate/efficient in predicting WMT performance.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Applied Neuropsychology: Adult
Show more