Examining independent and combined accuracy of embedded performance validity tests in the California Verbal Learning Test-II and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised for detecting invalid performance

Resch, Zachary J; Pham, Amber; Abramson, Dayna A; White, Daniel J.; DeDios-Stern, Samantha; Ovsiew, Gabriel P.; Castillo, Liliam R.; Soble, Jason R.

doi:10.1080/23279095.2020.1742718

Cited by 50 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our RAVLT FC results were consistent with previously published findings from FC paradigms developed for other memory tests, such as the CVLT (e.g., Resch et al, 2020; Schwartz et al, 2016). Such differences between the RAVLT FC trial examined and previously published findings with other FC measures may be partially related to this specific RAVLT FC version.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In essence, current study results align with findings from other FC paradigms (e.g., Abeare et al, 2020;Resch et al, 2020;Schwartz et al, 2016) and cross-validated the RAVLT FC as a psychometrically sound embedded PVT that is able to detect invalid performance among clinical populations presenting with genuine memory impairment. Moreover, the RAVLT FC trial consistently differentiated invalid performers from patients with varying levels of verbal memory impairment, with adequate sensitivity (37%-82%) for an embedded validity indicator.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-validation of a forced-choice validity indicator to enhance the clinical utility of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

Soble¹,

Sharp²,

Carter³

et al. 2021

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A forced-choice (FC) recognition trial was recently developed as an embedded validity indicator for the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), although it has not been replicated outside of the initial validation study. This study cross-validated the RAVLT FC trial for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance and assessed the degree to which material-specific verbal memory impairment severity impacts its classification accuracy as a performance validity test (PVT). This cross-sectional study included 172 neuropsychiatric patients who completed the RAVLT and 4 independent criterion PVTs, which were used to classify validity groups (134 valid/38 invalid). Overall results showed the RAVLT FC had excellent classification accuracy for detecting invalid performance at a ≤13 cut-score (66% sensitivity/87% specificity). When patients were subdivided by memory impairment status, FC retained excellent classification accuracy among the normal memory and mild memory impairment groups with 66%-82% sensitivity and ≥89% specificity. Accuracy decreased among those with severe memory impairment, but remained significant with a lower, alternative cut-score of ≤11 (37% sensitivity/88% specificity). Findings were consistent with FC trials developed for other memory measures and support the utility of this novel RAVLT FC index for reliably identifying invalid performance, even in the context of significant verbal memory impairment. Public Significance StatementThe Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a well-validated and commonly used verbal learning/memory test in neuropsychological evaluation. This study demonstrated that a forced-choice recognition trial previously developed as an embedded performance validity test greatly enhances the clinical and research utility of the RAVLT as it accurately detects invalid test performance, even in the context of genuine memory impairment of increasing severity, without contributing to significantly greater evaluation time/burden.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Cross-validation of a forced-choice validity indicator to enhance the clinical utility of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

Soble¹,

Sharp²,

Carter³

et al. 2021

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, RD ≤4 (54% sensitivity/93% specificity) and Hits ≤4; (41% sensitivity/95% specificity), adequately differentiated validity groups in a large sample of consecutive outpatients (Olsen et al, 2019). RD ≤4 findings also were replicated among a diverse mixed clinical neuropsychiatric sample with 40% sensitivity and ≥90% specificity when examined separately among cognitively impaired and unimpaired patients (Resch et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Eight Embedded Performance Validity Tests in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory, and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised Recognition Trials for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This cross-sectional study evaluated eight embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) previously derived from the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Wechsler Memory Scale–IV–Logical Memory (LM), and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised (BVMT-R) recognition trials among a single mixed clinical sample of 108 neuropsychiatric patients (83 valid/25 invalid) with ( n = 54) and without ( n = 29) mild neurocognitive disorder. Among the overall sample, all eight recognition PVTs significantly differentiated valid from invalid performance (areas under the curve [AUCs] = .64-.81) with 26% to 44% sensitivity (≥89% specificity) at optimal cut-scores depending on the specific PVT. After subdividing the sample by cognitive impairment status, all eight PVTs continued to reliably identify invalid performance (AUC = .68-.91) with markedly increased sensitivities of 56% to 80% (≥89% specificity) in the unimpaired group. In contrast, among those with mild neurocognitive disorder, RAVLT False Positives and LM became nonsignificant, whereas the other six PVTs remained significant (AUC = .64-.77), albeit with reduced sensitivities of 32% to 44% (≥89% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. Taken together, results cross-validated BVMT-R and most RAVLT recognition indices as effective embedded PVTs for identifying invalid neuropsychological test performance with diverse populations including examinees with and without suspected mild neurocognitive disorder, whereas LM had more limited utility as an embedded PVT, particularly when mild neurocognitive disorder was present.

show abstract

“…Two popular options for improving the efficiency of performance validity assessment are the use of (a) embedded PVTs (i.e., deriving a validity index from an already-planned ability test within a neurocognitive test battery) and (b) abbreviated versions of freestanding PVTs. Thus, there has been a recent proliferation of research designed to cross-validate embedded PVTs (e.g., Bailey et al, 2018; Pliskin et al, 2020; Resch, Pham, 2020; Soble, Sharp et al, 2021; Webber & Soble, 2018; White et al, 2020) and abbreviated PVTs (e.g., Bailey et al, 2021; Rhoads, Resch, 2021) in various clinical populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Independent and Aggregated Accuracy of Trial 1 and the First 10 TOMM Items for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance Across Civilian and Veteran Clinical Samples

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies support using two abbreviated tests of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), including (a) Trial 1 (T1) and (b) the number of errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1e10), as performance validity tests (PVTs). In this study, we examined the independent and aggregated predictive utility of TOMM T1 and T1e10 for identifying invalid neuropsychological test performance across two clinical samples. We employed cross-sectional research to examine two independent and demographically diverse mixed samples of military veterans and civilians (VA = 108; academic medical center = 234) of patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. We determined validity groups by patient performance on four independent criterion PVTs. We established concordances between passing/failing the TOMM T1e10 and T1, followed by logistic regression to determine individual and aggregated accuracy of T1e10 and T1 for predicting validity group membership. Concordance between passing T1e10 and T1 was high, as was overall validity (87–98%) across samples. By contrast, T1e10 failure was more highly concordant with T1 failure (69–77%) than with overall invalidity status (59–60%) per criterion PVTs, whereas T1 failure was more highly concordant with invalidity status (72–88%) per criterion PVTs. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated similar results, with T1 accounting for more variance than T1e10. However, combining T1e10 and T1 accounted for the most variance of any model, with T1e10 and T1 each emerging as significant predictors. TOMM T1 and, to a lesser extent, T1e10 were significant predictors of independent criterion-derived validity status across two distinct clinical samples, but they did not offer improved classification accuracy when aggregated.

show abstract

Examining independent and combined accuracy of embedded performance validity tests in the California Verbal Learning Test-II and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised for detecting invalid performance

Cited by 50 publications

References 38 publications

Cross-validation of a forced-choice validity indicator to enhance the clinical utility of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

Cross-validation of a forced-choice validity indicator to enhance the clinical utility of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Eight Embedded Performance Validity Tests in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory, and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised Recognition Trials for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance

Comparing the Independent and Aggregated Accuracy of Trial 1 and the First 10 TOMM Items for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance Across Civilian and Veteran Clinical Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About