Optimal per test cutoff scores and combinations of failure on multiple embedded performance validity tests in detecting performance invalidity in a mixed clinical sample

Performance Validity Test Failure in the Clinical Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Rates

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are used to measure the validity of the obtained neuropsychological test data. However, when an individual fails a PVT, the likelihood that failure truly reflects invalid performance (i.e., the positive predictive value) depends on the base rate in the context in which the assessment takes place. Therefore, accurate base rate information is needed to guide interpretation of PVT performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the base rate of PVT failure in the clinical population (PROSPERO number: CRD42020164128). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched to identify articles published up to November 5, 2021. Main eligibility criteria were a clinical evaluation context and utilization of stand-alone and well-validated PVTs. Of the 457 articles scrutinized for eligibility, 47 were selected for systematic review and meta-analyses. Pooled base rate of PVT failure for all included studies was 16%, 95% CI [14, 19]. High heterogeneity existed among these studies (Cochran's Q = 697.97, p < .001; I2 = 91%; τ2 = 0.08). Subgroup analysis indicated that pooled PVT failure rates varied across clinical context, presence of external incentives, clinical diagnosis, and utilized PVT. Our findings can be used for calculating clinically applied statistics (i.e., positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios) to increase the diagnostic accuracy of performance validity determination in clinical evaluation. Future research is necessary with more detailed recruitment procedures and sample descriptions to further improve the accuracy of the base rate of PVT failure in clinical practice.

Replicating a Meta-Analysis: The Search for the Optimal Word Choice Test Cutoff Continues

This study was designed to expand on a recent meta-analysis that identified ≤42 as the optimal cutoff on the Word Choice Test (WCT). We examined the base rate of failure and the classification accuracy of various WCT cutoffs in four independent clinical samples (N = 252) against various psychometrically defined criterion groups. WCT ≤ 47 achieved acceptable combinations of specificity (.86-.89) at .49 to .54 sensitivity. Lowering the cutoff to ≤45 improved specificity (.91-.98) at a reasonable cost to sensitivity (.39-.50). Making the cutoff even more conservative (≤42) disproportionately sacrificed sensitivity (.30-.38) for specificity (.98-1.00), while still classifying 26.7% of patients with genuine and severe deficits as non-credible. Critical item (.23-.45 sensitivity at .89-1.00 specificity) and time-to-completion cutoffs (.48-.71 sensitivity at .87-.96 specificity) were effective alternative/complementary detection methods. Although WCT ≤ 45 produced the best overall classification accuracy, scores in the 43 to 47 range provide comparable objective psychometric evidence of non-credible responding. Results question the need for designating a single cutoff as "optimal," given the heterogeneity of signal detection environments in which individual assessors operate. As meta-analyses often fail to replicate, ongoing research is needed on the classification accuracy of various WCT cutoffs.

From "below chance" to "a single error is one too many": Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCRCVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCRCVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation. A single error on the FCRCVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. Defining non-credible responding as below chance level scores is an unnecessarily restrictive threshold that gives most examinees with invalid profiles a Pass.

Multivariate models provide an effective psychometric solution to the variability in classification accuracy of D-KEFS Stroop performance validity cutoffs

ObjectiveThe study was designed to expand on the results of previous investigations on the D-KEFS Stroop as a performance validity test (PVT), which produced diverging conclusions. Method The classification accuracy of previously proposed validity cutoffs on the D-KEFS Stroop was computed against four different criterion PVTs in two independent samples: patients with uncomplicated mild TBI (n = 68) and disability benefit applicants (n = 49). Results Age-corrected scaled scores (ACSSs) ≤6 on individual subtests often fell short of specificity standards. Making the cutoffs more conservative improved specificity, but at a significant cost to sensitivity. In contrast, multivariate models (≥3 failures at ACSS ≤6 or ≥2 failures at ACSS ≤5 on the four subtests) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.39-.79) and specificity (.85-1.00), correctly classifying 74.6-90.6% of the sample. A novel validity scale, the D-KEFS Stroop Index correctly classified between 78.7% and 93.3% of the sample. Conclusions A multivariate approach to performance validity assessment provides a methodological safeguard against sample- and instrument-specific fluctuations in classification accuracy, strikes a reasonable balance between sensitivity and specificity, and mitigates the invalid before impaired paradox.

Failing Performance Validity Cutoffs on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) Is Specific, but Insensitive to Non-Credible Responding

This study was designed to examine alternative validity cutoffs on the Boston Naming Test (BNT).Archival data were collected from 206 adults assessed in a medicolegal setting following a motor vehicle collision. Classification accuracy was evaluated against three criterion PVTs.The first cutoff to achieve minimum specificity (.87-.88) was T ≤ 35, at .33-.45 sensitivity. T ≤ 33 improved specificity (.92-.93) at .24-.34 sensitivity. BNT validity cutoffs correctly classified 67-85% of the sample. Failing the BNT was unrelated to self-reported emotional distress. Although constrained by its low sensitivity, the BNT remains a useful embedded PVT.