Validity of informant report interpretations: Role of examinee performance and symptom invalidity

Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) detect inaccuracies in examinee-completed measures, though methods for assessing the accuracy of informant reports-which may be inaccurate due to examinee deception, motivation for external incentives (e.g., disability payments), or attempts to validate examinee experiences-remain underexplored. We used a sample of 72 veteran-informant dyads undergoing evaluation of possible epilepsy-related neurocognitive disorder to assess the association between examinee response invalidity (i.e., performance and/or symptom invalidity) and informant report measures. Examinees completed PVTs, SVTs, cognitive, and self-report measures. Informants completed measures on examinee functioning and their own caregiver burden. Performance invalidity was defined as failure on two or more PVTs. Symptom invalidity for psychopathology symptom reports (SVT-P) and cognitive/somatic symptom reports (SVT-CS) were separately defined via above-threshold scores on two or more SVT criterion. Independent samples t tests demonstrated the associations of the PVT, SVT-CS, and SVT-P groups with informant-report measures. Informants for examinees with performance invalidity reported worse functioning in the examinee than informants for examinees in the valid performance group (medium-large effect sizes). Symptom validity status (for both SVT-CS and SVT-P) was meaningfully but less strongly related to informant-reported examinee functioning (small-medium effect sizes). Neither performance nor symptom invalidity was meaningfully related to informant-reported caregiver burden (negligible effect sizes). Informant reports for examinees with response invalidity should be interpreted with caution. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Deficient Emotion Processing is Associated with Everyday Functioning Capacity in HIV-associated Neurocognitive Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Emotion processing has received little research focus in HIV, but emerging evidence suggests that abilities such as facial affect discrimination may be features of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). The present study hypothesized that individuals with HAND would evidence an emotion processing deficit relative to cognitively unimpaired individuals with HIV and seronegative comparison participants on a task assessing these abilities. Moreover, it was expected that this deficit would be significantly associated with social aspects of everyday functioning.

METHOD

To explore these hypotheses, 37 HIV+ individuals with HAND, 46 HIV+ without HAND, and 38 HIV-seronegative comparison participants were administered the CogState Social Emotional Cognition Task (SECT) and the UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment-Brief (UPSA-B).

RESULTS

Results revealed that the HAND group was more likely to have impaired accuracy and slower reaction time relative to the comparison groups on the SECT task. In fact, individuals with HAND were almost 10 times more likely to be impaired on emotion processing accuracy than HIV+ without HAND. Among individuals with HIV, accuracy (but not reaction time) was independently related to a functional capacity measure tapping social ability, but not to a similar measure without a social component (UPSA-B Communication and Finances subscales, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that disruption of emotion processing may be an important feature of HAND that has clinical value as an independent predictor of real-world activities that involve social components. Future research should prospectively investigate this relationship, which may inform of intervention strategies for improving everyday functioning.