Five shades of gray: Conceptual and methodological issues around multivariate models of performance validity

The classification accuracy of Warrington's recognition memory test (words) as a performance validity Test in a neurorehabilitation setting

This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Warrington's Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in 167 patients (97 or 58.1% men; MAge = 40.4; MEducation= 13.8) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation against five psychometrically defined criterion groups. At the optimal cutoff (≤42), the RMT produced an acceptable combination of sensitivity (.36-.60) and specificity (.85-.95), correctly classifying 68.4-83.3% of the sample. Making the cutoff more conservative (≤41) improved specificity (.88-.95) at the expense of sensitivity (.30-.60). Lowering the cutoff to ≤40 achieved uniformly high specificity (.91-.95) but diminished sensitivity (.27-.48). RMT scores were unrelated to lateral dominance, education, or gender. The RMT was sensitive to a three-way classification of performance validity (Pass/Borderline/Fail), further demonstrating its discriminant power. Despite a notable decline in research studies focused on its classification accuracy within the last decade, the RMT remains an effective free-standing PVT that is robust to demographic variables. Relatively low sensitivity is its main liability. Further research is needed on its cross-cultural validity (sensitivity to limited English proficiency).

Standalone Performance Validity Tests May Be Differentially Related to Measures of Working Memory, Processing Speed, and Verbal Memory in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Cognitive functioning may account for minimal levels (i.e., 5%-14%) of variance of performance validity test (PVT) scores in clinical examinees. The present study extended this research twofold: (a) by determining the variance cognitive functioning explains within three distinct PVTs (b) in a sample of patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Seventy-five pwMS (Mage = 48.50, 70.6% female, 80.9% White) completed the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), Word Choice Test (WCT), Dot Counting Test (DCT), and three objective measures of working memory, processing speed, and verbal memory as part of clinical neuropsychological assessment. Regression analyses in credible groups (ns ranged from 54 to 63) indicated that cognitive functioning explained 24% to 38% of the variance in logarithmically transformed PVT variables. Variance from cognitive testing differed across PVTs: verbal memory significantly influenced both VSVT and WCT scores; working memory influenced VSVT and DCT scores; and processing speed influenced DCT scores. The WCT appeared least related to cognitive functioning of the included PVTs. Alternative plausible explanations, including the apparent domain/modality specificity hypothesis of PVTs versus the potential sensitivity of these PVTs to neurocognitive dysfunction in pwMS were discussed. Continued psychometric investigations into factors affecting performance validity, especially in multiple sclerosis, are warranted.

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.

The impact of race and other demographic factors on the false positive rates of five embedded Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in a Veteran sample

INTRODUCTION

It is common to use normative adjustments based on race to maintain accuracy when interpreting cognitive test results during neuropsychological assessment. However, embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) do not adjust for these racial differences and may result in elevated rates of false positives in African American/Black (AA) samples compared to European American/White (EA) samples.

METHODS

Veterans without Major Neurocognitive Disorder completed an outpatient neuropsychological assessment and were deemed to be performing in a valid manner (e.g., passing both the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 (TOMM1) and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), (n = 531, EA = 473, AA = 58). Five embedded PVTs were administered to all patients: WAIS-III/IV Processing Speed Index (PSI), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised: Discrimination Index (BVMT-R), TMT-A (secs), California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) Forced Choice, and WAIS-III/IV Digit Span Scaled Score. Individual PVT false positive rates, as well as the rate of failing two or more embedded PVTs, were calculated.

RESULTS

Failure rates of two embedded PVTs (PSI, TMT-A), and the total number of PVTs failed, were higher in the AA sample. The PSI and TMT-A remained significantly impacted by race after accounting for age, education, sex, and presence of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. There were PVT failure rates greater than 10% (and considered false positives) in both groups (AA: PSI, TMT-A, and BVMT-R, 12-24%; EA: BVMT-R, 17%). Failing 2 or more PVTs (AA = 9%, EA = 4%) was impacted by education and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder but not by race.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual (timed) PVTs showed higher false positive rates in the AA sample even after accounting for demographic factors and diagnosis of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. Requiring failure on 2 or more embedded PVTs reduced false positive rates to acceptable levels across both groups (10% or less) and was not significantly influenced by race.

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.

Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated performance validity in the understudied Romanian clinical population by exploring classification accuracies of the Dot Counting Test (DCT) and the first Romanian performance validity test (PVT) (Memory of Objects and Digits and Evaluation of Memory Malingering/MODEMM) in a heterogeneous clinical sample.

METHODS

We evaluated 54 outpatients (26 females; MAge = 62.02; SDAge = 12.3; MEducation = 2.41, SDEducation = 2.82) with the Test of Memory Malingering 1 (TOMM-1), Rey Fifteen Items Test (Rey-15) (free recall and recognition trials), DCT, MODEMM, and MMSE/MoCA as part of their neuropsychological assessment. Accuracy parameters and base failure rates were computed for the DCT and MODEMM indicators against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15. Two patient groups were constructed according to psychometrically defined credible/noncredible performance (i.e., pass/fail both TOMM-1 and Rey-15).

RESULTS

Similar to other cultures, a cutoff of ≥18 on the DCT E score produced the best combination between sensitivity (0.50-0.57) and specificity (≥0.90). MODEMM indicators based on recognition accuracy, inconsistencies, and inclusion false positives generated 0.75-0.86 sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities. Multivariable models of MODEMM indicators reached perfect sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities against two PVTs. Patients who failed the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 were significantly more likely to fail the DCT and MODEMM than patients who passed both PVTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results offer proof of concept for the DCT's cross-cultural validity and the applicability of the MODEMM on Romanian clinical examinees, further recommending the use of heterogeneous validity indicators in clinical assessments.

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.

Logical memory, visual reproduction, and verbal paired associates are effective embedded validity indicators in patients with traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVE

This study was design to evaluate the potential of the recognition trials for the Logical Memory (LM), Visual Reproduction (VR), and Verbal Paired Associates (VPA) subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scales-Fourth Edition (WMS-IV) to serve as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs).

METHOD

The classification accuracy of the three WMS-IV subtests was computed against three different criterion PVTs in a sample of 103 adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

RESULTS

The optimal cutoffs (LM ≤ 20, VR ≤ 3, VPA ≤ 36) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.33-.87) and specificity (.92-.98). An age-corrected scaled score of ≤5 on either of the free recall trials on the VPA was specific (.91-.92) and relatively sensitive (.48-.57) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. A VR I ≤ 5 or VR II ≤ 4 had comparable specificity, but lower sensitivity (.25-.42). There was no difference in failure rate as a function of TBI severity.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to LM, VR, and VPA can also function as embedded PVTs. Failing validity cutoffs on these subtests signals an increased risk of non-credible presentation and is robust to genuine neurocognitive impairment. However, they should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of an overall neurocognitive profile.

Validating Embedded Validity Indicators of Feigned ADHD-Associated Cognitive Impairment Using the MOXO-d-CPT

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to validate the utility of previously established validity indicators derived from MOXO-d-CPT's continuous performance test.

METHOD

Healthy simulators feigned impairment after searching online for relevant information, an ecologically valid coaching condition (n = 39). They were compared to ADHD patients (n = 36) and healthy controls (n = 38).

RESULTS

Simulators performed significantly worse than ADHD patients in all MOXO-d-CPT indices, as well as a scale that integrates their contributions (feigned ADHD scale). Three indices (attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) and the latter scale exhibited adequate discriminative capacity. Higher education was associated with an exaggerated impairment among simulators, easing their detection.

CONCLUSION

Similarity between the current study and a previous study which examned the utlity of the MOXO-d-CPT validity indicators, increases our confidence in the efficacy of the latters embedded validity indicators. Though the findings provide initial validation of these validity indicators, generalizing beyond highly functioning participants necessitates further research.

A Method for Improving the Prediction of Outpatient Visits for Hospital Management: Bayesian Autoregressive Analysis

The number of outpatient visits is generally influenced by various factors that are difficult to quantify and obtain, resulting in some irregular fluctuations. The traditional statistical methodology seldom considers these uncertainties. Accordingly, this paper presents a Bayesian autoregressive (AR) analysis to propose a forecasting framework to cope with the strict requirements. The AR model was conducted to identify the linear and autocorrelation relationships of historical series, and Bayesian inference was used to correct and optimize the AR model parameters. Posterior distribution of parameters was stably and reliably obtained by Gibbs sampling on the condition of the convergent Markov chain. Meanwhile, the lag orders of the AR model were adjusted based on the series characteristics. To increase the variability and generality of the dataset, the developed Bayesian AR model was evaluated at seven hospitals in China. The results demonstrated that the Bayesian AR model had varying degrees of decline in the MAPE value in the seven sets of experimental data. The reductions ranged from 0.1431% to 0.0342%, indicating effective optimization of the Bayesian inference in the AR model parameters and reflecting the useful correction of the lag order adjustment strategy. The proposed Bayesian AR framework showed high accuracy index and stable prediction accuracy, thereby outperforming the traditional AR model.

Online search strategies utilized in feigning attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) while performing a continuous performance test (CPT)

BACKGROUND

The availability of information regarding neuropsychological tests threatens their confidentiality. This concern may be particularly relevant to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) considering its widespread online coverage. The present study explored simulators' online search strategies.

METHOD

Simulators (n = 39) searched for information before undergoing an evaluation which included performing a continuous performance test (CPT). Their search strategies were analyzed, and their performance was compared to that of ADHD patients (n = 36) and healthy controls (n = 38).

RESULTS

Most simulators reached high-risk websites that provided written and video-based information regarding the test. Sixty percent, comprised mostly of 3rd-year students, reached Google Scholar. These students were also easier to detect as simulators. Common strategies included performing the CPT in accordance with typical ADHD symptoms and avoiding the endorsement of both unusual and stereotypical symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Simulators can access online information that contains key test data. Higher education may increase the ability to reach academic research while decreasing the ability to convincingly feign impairment. While additional research is needed to examine coaching effects on neuropsychological testing, the risk to test security that many websites pose should be acknowledged and steps, including ones taken by test publishers, should be undertaken to minimize it.

Cross-Cultural Performance Validity Testing: Managing False Positives in Examinees with Limited English Proficiency

Base rates of failure (BR_Fail) on performance validity tests (PVTs) were examined in university students with limited English proficiency (LEP). BR_Fail was calculated for several free-standing and embedded PVTs. All free-standing PVTs and certain embedded indicators were robust to LEP. However, LEP was associated with unacceptably high BR_Fail (20-50%) on several embedded PVTs with high levels of verbal mediation (even multivariate models of PVT could not contain BR_Fail). In conclusion, failing free-standing/dedicated PVTs cannot be attributed to LEP. However, the elevated BR_Fail on several embedded PVTs in university students suggest an unacceptably high overall risk of false positives associated with LEP.

BNT-15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

BACKGROUND

Abbreviated neurocognitive tests offer a practical alternative to full-length versions but often lack clear interpretive guidelines, thereby limiting their clinical utility.

OBJECTIVE

To replicate validity cutoffs for the Boston Naming Test-Short Form (BNT-15) and to introduce a clinical classification system for the BNT-15 as a measure of object-naming skills.

METHOD

We collected data from 43 university students and 46 clinical patients. Classification accuracy was computed against psychometrically defined criterion groups. Clinical classification ranges were developed using a z -score transformation.

RESULTS

Previously suggested validity cutoffs (≤11 and ≤12) produced comparable classification accuracy among the university students. However, a more conservative cutoff (≤10) was needed with the clinical patients to contain the false-positive rate (0.20-0.38 sensitivity at 0.92-0.96 specificity). As a measure of cognitive ability, a perfect BNT-15 score suggests above average performance; ≤11 suggests clinically significant deficits. Demographically adjusted prorated BNT-15 T-scores correlated strongly (0.86) with the newly developed z -scores.

CONCLUSION

Given its brevity (<5 minutes), ease of administration and scoring, the BNT-15 can function as a useful and cost-effective screening measure for both object-naming/English proficiency and performance validity. The proposed clinical classification ranges provide useful guidelines for practitioners.

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.

Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (Continuous and Categorical)

This study was designed to examine the classification accuracy of the Erdodi Index (EI-5), a novel method for aggregating validity indicators that takes into account both the number and extent of performance validity test (PVT) failures. Archival data were collected from a mixed clinical/forensic sample of 452 adults referred for neuropsychological assessment. The classification accuracy of the EI-5 was evaluated against established free-standing PVTs. The EI-5 achieved a good combination of sensitivity (.65) and specificity (.97), correctly classifying 92% of the sample. Its classification accuracy was comparable with that of another free-standing PVT. An indeterminate range between Pass and Fail emerged as a legitimate third outcome of performance validity assessment, indicating that the underlying construct is an inherently continuous variable. Results support the use of the EI model as a practical and psychometrically sound method of aggregating multiple embedded PVTs into a single-number summary of performance validity. Combining free-standing PVTs with the EI-5 resulted in a better separation between credible and non-credible profiles, demonstrating incremental validity. Findings are consistent with recent endorsements of a three-way outcome for PVTs (Pass, Borderline, and Fail).

Examining the cross-cultural validity of the test of memory malingering and the Rey 15-item test

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate the cross-cultural validity of two freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs), the Test of Memory Malingering - Trial 1 (TOMM-1) and the Rey Fifteen Item Test (Rey-15) in Romanian-speaking patients.

METHODS

The TOMM-1 and Rey-15 free recall (FR) and the combination score incorporating the recognition trial (COMB) were administered to a mixed clinical sample of 61 adults referred for cognitive evaluation, 24 of whom had external incentives to appear impaired. Average scores on PVTs were compared between the two groups. Classification accuracies were computed using one PVT against another.

RESULTS

Patients with identifiable external incentives to appear impaired produced significantly lower scores and more errors on validity indicators. The largest effect sizes emerged on TOMM-1 (Cohen's d = 1.00-1.19). TOMM-1 was a significant predictor of the Rey-15 COMB ≤20 (AUC = .80; .38 sensitivity; .89 specificity at a cutoff of ≤39). Similarly, both Rey-15 indicators were significant predictors of TOMM-1 at ≤39 as the criterion (AUCs = .73-.76; .33 sensitivity; .89-.90 specificity).

CONCLUSION

Results offer a proof of concept for the cross-cultural validity of the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian clinical sample.

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.

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.

Critical Item Analysis Enhances the Classification Accuracy of the Logical Memory Recognition Trial as a Performance Validity Indicator

OBJECTIVE

: Replicate previous research on Logical Memory Recognition (LM_Recog) and perform a critical item analysis.

METHOD

: Performance validity was psychometrically operationalized in a mixed clinical sample of 213 adults. Classification of the LM_Recog and nine critical items (CR-9) was computed.

RESULTS

: LM_Recog ≤20 produced a good combination of sensitivity (.30-.35) and specificity (.89-.90). CR-9 ≥5 and ≥6 had comparable classification accuracy. CR-9 ≥5 increased sensitivity by 4% over LM_Recog ≤20; CR-9 ≥6 increased specificity by 6-8% over LM_Recog ≤20; CR-9 ≥7 increased specificity by 8-15%.

CONCLUSIONS

: Critical item analysis enhances the classification accuracy of the optimal LM_Recog cutoff (≤20).