A Known-Groups Validation of the Medical Symptom Validity Test and Analysis of the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile

Abstract

This study cross-validated the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample and examined its accuracy for identifying invalid neuropsychological performance using a known-groups design. Cross-sectional data from 129 clinical patients who completed the MSVT were examined. Validity groups were established using six, independent criterion performance validity tests, which yielded 98 patients in the valid group and 31 in the invalid group. All MSVT subtest scores were significantly lower in the invalid group (η p2=.22-.39). Using published cut-scores, sensitivities of 42% to 71% were found among the primary effort subtests, and 74% sensitivity/90% specificity was observed for the overall MSVT. Among this sample, the MSVT component validity scales produced areas under the curve of .78-.86, suggesting moderate classification accuracy. At optimal cut-scores, the MSVT primary effort validity scales demonstrated 55% to 71% sensitivity/91% to 93% specificity, with the Consistency subtest exhibiting the strongest psychometric properties. The MSVT exhibited relatively robust sensitivity and specificity, supporting its utility as a briefer freestanding performance validity test to its predecessor, the Word Memory Test. Finally, the Genuine Memory Impairment Profile appears promising for patients with Major Neurocognitive Disorder, but is cautioned against for those without significant functional decline in activities of daily living at this time.

Using the Grooved Pegboard Test as an Embedded Validity Indicator in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Validation Problems

“…We established each participant's validity group membership on the basis of five independent criterion PVTs: Dot Counting Test (DCT; Boone et al, 2002; sample failure rate: 17.5%); Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT; Green, 2004;Resch et al, 2022; sample failure rate: 19.3%; using the genuine memory impairment profile when appropriate); Reliable Digit Span (RDS; Schroeder et al, 2012;Wechsler, 2008; sample failure rate: 12.6%); Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM Trial 1; Denning, 2012;Tombaugh, 1996; sample failure rate: 22.4%); and Word Choice Test (WCT; Bernstein et al, 2021;Neale et al, 2022;Pearson, 2009; sample failure rate: 14.8%). Specifically, patients with ≤1 criterion PVT failure were classified into the valid group (n = 177; 79.4%), whereas those with ≥2 criterion PVT failures constituted the invalid group (n = 46; 20.6%), consistent with current practice standards and past empirical findings regarding these measures (Jennette et al, 2021;Rhoads et al, 2021).…”

Comprehensive Analysis of MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scales and Performance Validity Test Relationships in a Diverse Mixed Neuropsychiatric Setting

“…This battery included the Test of Premorbid Function (TOPF; Pearson, 2009), Verbal Fluency (F/A/S and Animal Naming; Heaton et al, 2004), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT; Schmidt, 1996), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R; Benedict, 1997), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008) Processing Speed Intext (PSI), Trail Making Test (TMT; Heaton et al, 2004), and Stroop Color and Word Test (Golden, 1978). Of note, FSIQ 100.18 (9.20) 77-128 100.83 (8.82) 77-128 97.51 (10.46) 79-115 3 although embedded PVTs derived from the RAVLT (Boone et al, 2005;Pliskin et al, 2021;Soble et al, 2021a) and BVMT-R (Bailey et al, 2018;Resch et al, 2022b), Verbal Fluency, TMT, and Stroop (Khan et al, 2022;White et al, 2020) have been identified; these embedded indicators were not included in the reference standard in order to avoid criterion contamination by keeping the neurocognitive tests fully independent from the criterion PVTs used to establish the validity groups. Among the 30 total patients who were actively compensation-seeking at the time of evaluation (see Table 1), 27% (8/30) obtained ≥ 2 PVT failures and were classified into the invalid group, whereas the remaining 73% (22/30) of those who were actively compensationseeking demonstrated valid test performance (i.e., ≤ 1 PVT failure).…”