A new kid on the block: The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) in children with neurological conditions

A comparison of MVP and MSVT performance among a diverse clinical pediatric sample

The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) and Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) are performance validity tests (PVTs) used to identify potential noncredible test performance during psychological evaluations. This study sought to examine the agreement between MVP and MSVT pass rates, as well as to determine if there are differences in MVP pass rates when using the cutoff score in the MVP professional manual compared with the experimental cutoff score of <31. Via retrospective review of records, 106 clients at a private neuropsychological clinic who had been given the MVP and the MSVT were identified. Results indicated that only one client met the manual cutoff scores, compared to 20 clients who failed the MSVT, raising concerns regarding the sensitivity of the MVP. Utilizing the receiver operator characteristic (ROC), curve analyses indicated fair discriminability of the MVP for the 106 participants (AUC = .717) with acceptable sensitivity (.50) and specificity (.92) for an MVP total score cutoff of <31. These findings support the utility of the experimental cut score in improving the sensitivity while maintaining adequate specificity in a clinically mixed population.

Performance and Symptom Validity in Outpatient Pediatric Neuropsychological Evaluations

This study aimed to clarify the value of using different types of validity measures in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. We examined the relationship between performance (PVT) and symptom (SVT) validity tests as well as demographic variables and results from a screening test of learning and memory (i.e. Child and Adolescent Memory Profile [ChAMP]) in a mixed pediatric sample (n = 103). There was minimal overlap between PVT and SVT failures. Regression analyses demonstrated that PVT results, parental education, and history of special education were statistically significant predictors of ChAMP results, whereas SVT results were not.

New Child and Adolescent Memory Profile Embedded Performance Validity Test

OBJECTIVE

It is essential to interpret performance validity tests (PVTs) that are well-established and have strong psychometrics. This study evaluated the Child and Adolescent Memory Profile (ChAMP) Validity Indicator (VI) using a pediatric sample with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHOD

A cross-sectional sample of N = 110 youth (mean age = 15.1 years, standard deviation [SD] = 2.4 range = 8-18) on average 32.7 weeks (SD = 40.9) post TBI (71.8% mild/concussion; 3.6% complicated mild; 24.6% moderate-to-severe) were administered the ChAMP and two stand-alone PVTs. Criterion for valid performance was scores above cutoffs on both PVTs; criterion for invalid performance was scores below cutoffs on both PVTs. Classification statistics were used to evaluate the existing ChAMP VI and establish a new VI cutoff score if needed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics or time since injury between those deemed valid (n = 96) or invalid (n = 14), but all ChAMP scores were significantly lower in those deemed invalid. The original ChAMP VI cutoff score was highly specific (no false positives) but also highly insensitive (sensitivity [SN] = .07, specificity [SP] = 1.0). Based on area under the curve (AUC) analysis (0.94), a new cutoff score was established using the sum of scaled scores (VI-SS). A ChAMP VI-SS score of 32 or lower achieved strong SN (86%) and SP (92%). Using a 15% base rate, positive predictive value was 64% and negative predictive value was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

The originally proposed ChAMP VI has insufficient SN in pediatric TBI. However, this study yields a promising new ChAMP VI-SS, with classification metrics that exceed any other current embedded PVT in pediatrics.

New cut-score to improve performance of the Memory Validity Profile (MVP) in heterogenous clinical populations

The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) is a standalone performance validity test developed specifically for use with children. Prior research has demonstrated the MVP's strength in its ease of administration to children with a wide range of intellectual abilities. However, it has been found to lack sensitivity in detecting noncredible performance in select clinical populations using published cutoffs. The current study examines the MVP's performance in a diagnostically heterogeneous clinical sample and proposes a new cutoff for optimization of sensitivity and specificity. Archival clinical data were examined from 96 participants referred for a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation (ages 6-18). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to assess the discriminative ability of MVP in detecting cases of noncredible performance defined as failures on both the Test of Memory Malingering and Reliable Digit Span. Using published cutoffs, the MVP demonstrated perfect specificity (100%) but suboptimal sensitivity (33.3%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed strong discrimination using MVP Total score (AUC = 0.891 (p < 0.001)) and a MVP Total cut-score of ≤30 resulted in optimal sensitivity (89%) and specificity (63%). Our findings provide additional evidence that published MVP cutoffs may be too lenient to adequately capture instances of noncredible performance and indicate an MVP Total score cutoff of ≤30 may be more appropriate for use with heterogeneous clinical populations.