Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

Abstract

In this study we attempted to replicate the classification accuracy of the newly introduced Forced Choice Recognition trial (FCR) of the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT) in a clinical sample. We administered the RCFT FCR and the earlier Yes/No Recognition trial from the RCFT to 52 clinically referred patients as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and incentivized a separate control group of 83 university students to perform well on these measures. We then computed the classification accuracies of both measures against criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) and compared results between the two samples. At previously published validity cutoffs (≤16 & ≤17), the RCFT FCR remained specific (.84–1.00) to psychometrically defined non-credible responding. Simultaneously, the RCFT FCR was more sensitive to examinees’ natural variability in visual-perceptual and verbal memory skills than the Yes/No Recognition trial. Even after being reduced to a seven-point scale (18-24) by the validity cutoffs, both RCFT recognition scores continued to provide clinically useful information on visual memory. This is the first study to validate the RCFT FCR as a PVT in a clinical sample. Our data also support its use for measuring cognitive ability. Replication studies with more diverse samples and different criterion measures are still needed before large-scale clinical application of this scale.

BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

“…Table 1 provides the participants’ demographic data and scores on the neuropsychological tests. The sample was used in two previous publications focusing on different topics (Abeare K et al, 2021; Cutler et al, 2021).…”

“…Consequently, the time required to administer, score, and interpret a measure has become an important consideration in test selection in recent years. In this climate, rapid assessment instruments provide a viable practical alternative to comprehensive batteries of expansive cognitive tests because in addition to being cost effective, they also limit demands on the mental stamina of fragile examinees who cannot tolerate lengthy testing sessions (Abeare C et al, 2021; Lichtenstein et al, 2017).…”

“…EI-5 = Erdodi Index Five. FCR RCFT = Forced Choice Recognition trial of the Rey Complex Figure Test (raw score;Abeare K et al, 2021;Rai et al, 2019). GPB Dominant = Grooved Pegboard Test, dominant hand (demographically adjusted T-score using norms byHeaton et al, 2004;Erdodi, 2021;Erdodi et al, 2017bErdodi et al, , 2018cLink et al, 2021).…”

Examining the effect of repeat administration, alternate versions, and performance validity on letter fluency tests in a mixed clinical sample.

“…As such, they may have inflated false positive rates in older adults given the normative age-related decline in set shifting ability (Cepeda et al, 2001), as it has been demonstrated on other embedded PVTs (Abeare, Sabelli, et al, 2019). Conversely, validity cutoffs based on raw scores are likely to be less sensitive to noncredible responding in young, cognitively high functioning individuals (Abeare, Messa, et al, 2019; Abeare, Romero, et al, 2021; Rai et al, 2019).…”

A large-scale investigation of the classification accuracy of various performance validity tests in a medical-legal setting.

“…By design, PVTs can be free-standing/ dedicated (i.e., developed specifically for the purpose of evaluating the credibility of a given response set) or embedded (i.e., cutoffs derived from ability tests). Most free-standing PVTs employ a forced-choice recognition paradigm (e.g., Allen et al, 1997;Binder, 1993;Green, 2003;Pearson, 2009;Tombaugh, 1996), as it has been repeatedly shown to be a powerful psychometric model for differentiating credible from noncredible responding (K. Abeare, Romero, et al, 2021;Ali et al, 2023;Blavier et al, 2023;Crişan & Erdodi, 2022;Cutler et al, 2022;Denning, 2012Denning, , 2021L. A. Erdodi, 2023b;Fazio et al, 2017;Gegner et al, 2022;Giromini et al, 2020;Green, 2007;Greve, Etherton, et al, 2009;Holcomb et al, 2023;Jones, 2013;Kim et al, 2010;Kulas et al, 2014;Larrabee, 2005;Lichtenstein et al, 2017;Messa et al, 2022;Rai et al, 2019;Schroeder et al, 2013;Tse et al, 2023;Tyson et al, 2023;Webber et al, 2018;Wisdom et al, 2012).…”