Self-report measures are commonly relied upon in military healthcare environments to assess service members following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). However, such instruments are susceptible to over-reporting and rarely include validity scales. This study evaluated the utility of the mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms scale (mBIAS) and the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory Validity-10 scale to detect symptom over-reporting. A total of 359 service members with a reported history of mTBI were separated into two symptom reporting groups based on MMPI-2-RF validity scales (i.e., non-over-reporting versus symptom over-reporting). The clinical utility of the mBIAS and Validity-10 as diagnostic indicators and screens of symptom over-reporting were evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive test rate, positive predictive power (PPP), and negative predictive power (NPP) values. An mBIAS cut score of ≥10 was optimal as a diagnostic indicator, which resulted in high specificity and PPP; however, sensitivity was low. The utility of the mBIAS as a screening instrument was limited. A Validity-10 cut score of ≥33 was optimal as a diagnostic indicator. This resulted in very high specificity and PPP, but low sensitivity. A Validity-10 cut score of ≥7 was considered optimal as a screener, which resulted in moderate sensitivity, specificity, NPP, but relatively low PPP. Owing to low sensitivity, the current data suggests that both the mBIAS and Validity-10 are insufficient as stand-alone measures of symptom over-reporting. However, Validity-10 scores above the identified cut-off of ≥7should be taken as an indication that further evaluation to rule out symptom over-reporting is necessary.

No abstract

These data are consistent with past studies, and extends those studies by including symptom validity testing and investigating the effect of reason for MEB. This and previous studies demonstrate that more than 50% of SMs seen in the context of an MEB will fail performance validity tests and over-report on symptom validity measures. These results emphasize the importance of using both performance and symptom validity testing when evaluating SMs with a history of mTBI, especially if they are being seen for disability evaluations, in order to ensure the accuracy of cognitive and psychological test data.

No abstract

Two types of outcome appearing in most research on learned helplessness were studied. Subjects performing under an extinction, i.e., non-occurring, programmed outcome evidenced “learned helplessness.” Contrary to learned helplessness theory, however, most subjects given response-independent outcomes developed superstitious behavior and reported perceived control of events. Subjects in a third group whose responses were reinforced during a 50-trial “training” phase showed response “excesses” during 10 subsequent “test” trials. These results have important implications for the theory of learned helplessness and the relevance of laboratory phenomena to human behavioral disorders.