Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( IF 2.2 ) Pub Date : 2021-05-16 , DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2021.1926435 Karen A Martinez 1 , Courtney Sayers 1 , Charles Hayes 1 , Phillip K Martin 2 , C Brendan Clark 1 , Ryan W Schroeder 2
ABSTRACT
Introduction: While use of performance validity tests (PVTs) has become a standard of practice in neuropsychology, there are differing opinions regarding whether to interpret cognitive test data when standard scores fall within normal limits despite PVTs being failed. This study is the first to empirically determine whether normal cognitive test scores underrepresent functioning when PVTs are failed.
Method: Participants, randomly assigned to either a simulated malingering group (n = 50) instructed to mildly suppress test performances or a best-effort/control group (n = 50), completed neuropsychological tests which included the North American Adult Reading Test (NAART), California Verbal Learning Test – 2nd Edition (CVLT-II), and Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM).
Results: Groups were not significantly different in age, sex, education, or NAART predicted intellectual ability, but simulators performed significantly worse than controls on the TOMM, CVLT-II Forced Choice Recognition, and CVLT-II Short Delay Free Recall. The groups did not significantly differ on other examined CVLT-II measures. Of simulators who failed validity testing, 36% scored no worse than average and 73% scored no worse than low average on any of the examined CVLT-II indices.
Conclusions: Of simulated malingerers who failed validity testing, nearly three-fourths were able to produce cognitive test scores that were within normal limits, which indicates that normal cognitive performances cannot be interpreted as accurately reflecting an individual’s capabilities when obtained in the presence of validity test failure. At the same time, only 2 of 50 simulators were successful in passing validity testing while scoring within an impaired range on cognitive testing. This latter finding indicates that successfully feigning cognitive deficits is difficult when PVTs are utilized within the examination.
中文翻译:
在失败的绩效有效性测试的背景下,正常的认知测试分数不能被解释为准确的能力测量:症状和检测指导的模拟研究
摘要
简介:虽然使用性能效度测试 (PVT) 已成为神经心理学的实践标准,但当标准分数在正常范围内时,尽管 PVT 失败,是否解释认知测试数据存在不同的意见。这项研究是第一个凭经验确定当 PVT 失败时,正常的认知测试分数是否代表功能不足。
方法:参与者被随机分配到模拟装病组(n = 50),被指示轻度抑制测试表现或尽力而为/对照组(n = 50),完成了包括北美成人阅读测试(NAART)在内的神经心理学测试)、加州语言学习测试 - 第 2版 ( CVLT -II) 和记忆伪装测试 (TOMM)。
结果:各组在年龄、性别、教育或 NAART 预测的智力能力方面没有显着差异,但模拟器在 TOMM、CVLT-II 强制选择识别和 CVLT-II 短延迟自由回忆方面的表现明显差于对照组。这些组在其他检查的 CVLT-II 测量上没有显着差异。在未通过有效性测试的模拟器中,36% 的得分不低于平均水平,73% 的得分不低于任何检查的 CVLT-II 指数的低平均水平。
结论:在未通过效度测试的模拟装病者中,近四分之三的人能够产生在正常范围内的认知测试分数,这表明在存在效度测试时,正常的认知表现不能被解释为准确反映个人的能力失败。同时,50 个模拟器中只有 2 个成功通过了有效性测试,而在认知测试中得分处于受损范围内。后一项发现表明,当在检查中使用 PVT 时,很难成功假装认知缺陷。