Relations Among Performance and Symptom Validity, Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Burden in Postdeployment Veterans

Using the MMPI-2-RF, IOP-29, IOP-M, and FIT in the In-Person and Remote Administration Formats: A Simulation Study on Feigned mTBI

Our study compared the impact of administering Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in in-person versus remote formats and assessed different approaches to combining validity test results. Using the MMPI-2-RF, IOP-29, IOP-M, and FIT, we assessed 164 adults, with half instructed to feign mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and half to respond honestly. Within each subgroup, half completed the tests in person, and the other half completed them online via videoconferencing. Results from 2 ×2 analyses of variance showed no significant effects of administration format on SVT and PVT scores. When comparing feigners to controls, the MMPI-2-RF RBS exhibited the largest effect size (d = 3.05) among all examined measures. Accordingly, we conducted a series of two-step hierarchical logistic regression models by entering the MMPI-2-RF RBS first, followed by each other SVT and PVT individually. We found that the IOP-29 and IOP-M were the only measures that yielded incremental validity beyond the effects of the MMPI-2-RF RBS in predicting group membership. Taken together, these findings suggest that administering these SVTs and PVTs in-person or remotely yields similar results, and the combination of MMPI and IOP indexes might be particularly effective in identifying feigned mTBI.

Examination of the relationship between symptom and performance validity measures across referral subtypes

INTRODUCTION

The extent to which performance validity (PVT) and symptom validity (SVT) tests measure separate constructs is unclear. Prior research using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2 & RF) suggested that PVTs and SVTs are separate but related constructs. However, the relationship between Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) SVTs and PVTs has not been explored. This study aimed to replicate previous MMPI research using the PAI, exploring the relationship between PVTs and overreporting SVTs across three subsamples, neurodevelopmental (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/learning disorder), psychiatric, and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

METHODS

Participants included 561 consecutive referrals who completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the PAI. Three subgroups were created based on referral question. The relationship between PAI SVTs and the PVT was evaluated through multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated the relationship between PAI symptom overreporting SVTs, including Negative Impression Management (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), and Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), and PVTs varied by referral subgroup. Specifically, overreporting on CBS but not NIM and MAL significantly predicted poorer PVT performance in the full sample and the mTBI sample. In contrast, none of the overreporting SVTs significantly predicted PVT performance in the ADHD/learning disorder sample but conversely, all SVTs predicted PVT performance in the psychiatric sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The results partially replicated prior research comparing SVTs and PVTs and suggested that constructs measured by SVTs and PVTs vary depending upon population. The results support the necessity of both PVTs and SVTs in clinical neuropsychological practice.

Validation of the personality assessment inventory (PAI) cognitive bias (CBS) and cognitive bias scale of scales (CB-SOS) in a post-deployment veteran sample

Objective: The present study evaluated the function of four cognitive, symptom validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) 1, 2, and 3 in a sample of Veterans who volunteered for a study of neurocognitive functioning. Method: 371 Veterans (88.1% male, 66.1% White) completed a battery including the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), the Word Memory Test (WMT), and the PAI. Independent samples t-tests compared mean differences on cognitive bias scales between valid and invalid groups on the M-FAST and WMT. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and hit rate across various scale point-estimates were used to evaluate classification accuracy of the CBS and CB-SOS scales. Results: Group differences were significant with moderate effect sizes for all cognitive bias scales between the WMT-classified groups (d = .52-.55), and large effect sizes between the M-FAST-classified groups (d = 1.27-1.45). AUC effect sizes were moderate across the WMT-classified groups (.650-.676) and large across M-FAST-classified groups (.816-.854). When specificity was set to .90, sensitivity was higher for M-FAST and the CBS performed the best (sensitivity = .42). Conclusion: The CBS and CB-SOS scales seem to better detect symptom invalidity than performance invalidity in Veterans using cutoff scores similar to those found in prior studies with non-Veterans.

Grooved Pegboard adds incremental value over memory-apparent performance validity tests in predicting psychiatric symptom report

The present study evaluated whether Grooved Pegboard (GPB), when used as a performance validity test (PVT), can incrementally predict psychiatric symptom report elevations beyond memory-apparent PVTs. Participants (N = 111) were military personnel and were predominantly White (84%), male (76%), with a mean age of 43 (SD = 12) and having on average 16 years of education (SD = 2). Individuals with disorders potentially compromising motor dexterity were excluded. Participants were administered GPB, three memory-apparent PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test, Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test, Reliable Digit Span), and a symptom validity test (Personality Assessment Inventory Negative Impression Management [NIM]). Results from the three memory-apparent PVTs were entered into a model for predicting NIM, where failure of two or more PVTs was categorized as evidence of non-credible responding. Hierarchical regression revealed that non-dominant hand GPB T-score incrementally predicted NIM beyond memory-apparent PVTs (F(2,108) = 16.30, p < .001; R² change = .05, β = -0.24, p < .01). In a second hierarchical regression, GPB performance was dichotomized into pass or fail, using T-score cutoffs (≤29 for either hand, ≤31 for both). Non-dominant hand GPB again predicted NIM beyond memory-apparent PVTs (F(2,108) = 18.75, p <.001; R² change = .08, β = -0.28, p < .001). Results indicated that noncredible/failing GPB performance adds incremental value over memory-apparent PVTs in predicting psychiatric symptom report.

Comprehensive Analysis of MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scales and Performance Validity Test Relationships in a Diverse Mixed Neuropsychiatric Setting

The utility of symptom (SVT) and performance (PVT) validity tests has been independently established in neuropsychological evaluations, yet research on the relationship between these two types of validity indices is limited to circumscribed populations and measures. This study examined the relationship between SVTs on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and PVTs in a mixed neuropsychiatric setting. This cross-sectional study included data from 181 diagnostically and demographically diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions referred for outpatient clinical neuropsychological evaluation at an academic medical center. All patients were administered a uniform neuropsychological battery, including the MMPI-2-RF and five PVTs (i.e., Dot Counting Test; Medical Symptom Validity Test; Reliable Digit Span; Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1; Word Choice Test). Nonsignificant associations emerged between SVT and PVT performance. Although the Response Bias Scale was most predictive of PVT performance, MMPI-2-RF SVTs generally had low classification accuracy for predicting PVT performance. Neuropsychological test performance was related to MMPI-2-RF SVT status only when overreporting elevations were at extreme scores. The current study further supports that SVTs and PVTs measure unique and dissociable constructs among diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, consistent with literature from other clinical contexts. Therefore, objective evidence of symptom overreporting on MMPI-2-RF SVTs cannot be interpreted as definitively indicating invalid performance on tests of neurocognitive abilities. As such, clinicians should include both SVTs and PVTs as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation as they provide unique information regarding performance and symptom validity.

Embedded cognitive and emotional/affective self-reported symptom validity indices on the patient competency rating scale

OBJECTIVE

Although there is an abundance of research on stand-alone and embedded performance validity tests and stand-alone symptom validity tests (SVTs), less emphasis has been placed on embedded SVTs. The goal of the current study was to examine the ability of embedded indicators within the Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS) to separately detect invalid cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom responding.

METHOD

Participants included 299 veterans assessed in a VA medical center epilepsy monitoring unit from 2013-2017 (mean age = 48.8 years, SD = 13.5 years). Two SVT composites were created; self-reported cognitive symptom validity (SVT-C) and self-reported emotional/affective symptom validity (SVT-E). Groups were compared on PCRS total and index scores (i.e., cognitive, activities of daily living, emotional, and interpersonal competencies) using ANOVAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed the classification accuracy of the PCRS total and index scores for SVT-C and SVT-E.

RESULTS

In ANOVAs, SVT-C was significantly associated with all PCRS indices, while SVT-E was only significantly associated with the PCRS total, emotional, and interpersonal competency indices. Although the PCRS-T ≤ 90 had the strongest classification of SVT-C and SVT-E (specificities: .90, sensitivities: .44 to .50), PCRS index scores showed suggestive evidence of domain specificity, with PCRS-ADL ≤22, PCRS-C ≤ 20, and PCRS-CADL ≤45 best classifying SVT-C (specificities: .92, sensitivities: .33) and the PCRS-E ≤ 18 best classifying the SVT-E group (specificity: .93, sensitivity: .40).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest the PCRS may be used to obtain clinically useful information while including embedded indicators that can assess cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom invalidity.

Take Their Word for It: The Inventory of Problems Provides Valuable Information on Both Symptom and Performance Validity

This study was designed to compare the validity of the Inventory of Problems (IOP-29) and its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) in 150 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological assessment. Criterion groups were psychometrically derived based on established performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). The criterion-related validity of the IOP-29 was compared to that of the Negative Impression Management scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (NIM_PAI) and the criterion-related validity of the IOP-M was compared to that of Trial-1 on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM-1). The IOP-29 correlated significantly more strongly (z = 2.50, p = .01) with criterion PVTs than the NIM_PAI (r_IOP-29 = .34; r_NIM-PAI = .06), generating similar overall correct classification values (OCC_IOP-29: 79-81%; OCC_NIM-PAI: 71-79%). Similarly, the IOP-M correlated significantly more strongly (z = 2.26, p = .02) with criterion PVTs than the TOMM-1 (r_IOP-M = .79; r_TOMM-1 = .59), generating similar overall correct classification values (OCC_IOP-M: 89-91%; OCC_TOMM-1: 84-86%). Findings converge with the cumulative evidence that the IOP-29 and IOP-M are valuable additions to comprehensive neuropsychological batteries. Results also confirm that symptom and performance validity are distinct clinical constructs, and domain specificity should be considered while calibrating instruments.

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

In psychological injury and related forensic evaluations, two types of tests are commonly used to assess Negative Response Bias (NRB): Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). SVTs assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms, whereas PVTs assess the credibility of observed performance on cognitive tasks. Compared to the large and ever-growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated self-report SVTs available to professionals for assessing symptom validity. In addition, while several studies have examined how to combine and integrate the results of multiple independent PVTs, there are few studies to date that have addressed the combination and integration of information obtained from multiple self-report SVTs. The Special Issue of Psychological Injury and Law introduced in this article aims to help fill these gaps in the literature by providing readers with detailed information about the convergent and incremental validity, strengths and weaknesses, and applicability of a number of selected measures of NRB under different conditions and in different assessment contexts. Each of the articles in this Special Issue focuses on a particular self-report SVT or set of SVTs and summarizes their conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and possible cut scores and relative hit rates. Here, we review the psychometric properties of the 19 selected SVTs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we make tentative proposals for the field to consider regarding the number of SVTs to be used in an assessment, the number of SVT failures required to invalidate test results, and the issue of redundancy when selecting multiple SVTs for an assessment.