Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised

Abeare, Christopher A.; Hurtubise, Jessica L.; Cutler, Laura; Sirianni, Christina D.; Brantuo, Maame; Makhzoum, Nadeen; Erdődi, László A.

doi:10.1080/13854046.2020.1779348

Cited by 35 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 170 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that the instructions given to examinees have a weak effect on the credibility of their response sets overall (Abeare, Hurtubise, et al, 2020;Niesten et al, 2017). In other words, reminding realworld patients to provide valid data does not assure that outcome.…”

Section: Reflections On Control Group Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Note . Shading represents the change in confidence in correctly classifying a given score as invalid (darker means more likely to be invalid); EI-5 MEM: Erdodi Index Five - Memory; EI-5 PSP: Erdodi Index Five – Processing Speed; CIM BDAE: Complex Ideational Material subtest of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Battery raw score ( An et al., 2019 ; Erdodi, 2019 ; Erdodi et al., 2016 ; Erdodi & Roth, 2017 ); DS WAIS: Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (age-corrected scaled score; Erdodi & Abeare, 2020 ; Erdodi & Lichtenstein, 2017 ; Hurtubise et al., 2020 ; Reese et al., 2012 ; Shura et al., 2019 ; Spencer et al., 2013 ; Webber & Soble, 2018 ; Whitney et al., 2009 ); FCR HVLT-R : Forced choice recognition trial of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised ( Abeare, Hurtubise, et al., 2020 ; Cutler et al., 2021 ); Rey-15 FR: Rey Fifteen-Item Test free recall ( Boone et al., 2002 ; Lezak, 1995 ; Merten et al., 2005 ; O’Bryant et al., 2003 ; Poynter et al., 2019 ; Russeler et al., 2008); Rey WRT: Rey Word Recognition Test ( Bell-Sprinkel et al., 2013 ; Goworowski et al., 2020 ; Love et al., 2014 ; Nitch et al., 2006 ; Smith et al., 2014 ); Animals: Animal fluency T-score using norms by Heaton et al., 2004 ( Hurtubise et al., 2020 ; Sugarman & Axelrod, 2015 ); CD WAIS : Coding subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (age-corrected scaled score; Erdodi & Abeare, 2020 ; Erdodi, Abeare, et al., 2017 ...…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By extending our investigation to clinical patients and adding an incentivized control group, we addressed several limitations of prior studies that were based on an experimental malingering paradigm ( Abeare, Hurtubise, et al., 2020 ; Erdal, 2004 ; Niesten et al., 2017 ). We incorporated two of the same criterion PVTs from the original study ( Rai et al., 2019 ) into the present analyses, permitting a direct comparison between past and present research.…”

Section: Strengths Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent decades EVI research has proliferated. A popular method of EVI development has been to add a FCR trial to existing memory tests, such as the California Verbal Learning Test (Delis et al, 2000), California Verbal Learning Test -Children's Version (Lichtenstein et al, 2017;2018); Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (Poreh et al, 2016), and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (Abeare, Hurtubise et al, 2020;Cutler et al, 2021). Following this trend, introduced an FCR trial to the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT); this RCFT FCR was placed 10 minutes after the end of the standard administration protocol.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Reflections On Control Group Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the TSI-2 would also benefit from more research on its classification accuracy across well-defined clinical populations with a wide range of demographic characteristics and geographic areas (Lichtenstein et al, 2019). The existing knowledge base on the ATR scale is limited by the reliance on simulation studies (Abeare et al, 2020;Carvalho et al, 2021;Hurtubise et al, 2020;Rai et al, 2019) and using performance validity tests 2 (as opposed to self-report symptom validity tests) as criterion measures (Gegner et al, 2021;Sabelli et al, 2021). Modality specificity is an increasingly recognized methodological artifact in calibrating instruments (Erdodi, 2021;Giromini et al, 2020;Lace et al, 2020;Schroeder et al, 2019).…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Negative Response Bias Within the Trauma Symptom Inventory–2 (TSI-2): a Review of the Literature

Ales

Erdődi

2021

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review was performed to summarize existing research on the symptom validity scales within the Trauma Symptom Inventory–Second Edition (TSI-2), a relatively new self-report measure designed to assess the psychological sequelae of trauma. The TSI-2 has built-in symptom validity scales to monitor response bias and alert the assessor of non-credible symptom profiles. The Atypical Response scale (ATR) was designed to identify symptom exaggeration or fabrication. Proposed cutoffs on the ATR vary from ≥ 7 to ≥ 15, depending on the assessment context. The limited evidence available suggests that ATR has the potential to serve as measure of symptom validity, although its classification accuracy is generally inferior compared to well-established scales. While the ATR seems sufficiently sensitive to symptom over-reporting, significant concerns about its specificity persist. Therefore, it is proposed that the TSI-2 should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of the symptom presentation. More research is needed for development of evidence-based guidelines about the interpretation of ATR scores.

show abstract

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Erdődi

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCR CVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation.A single error on the FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance.Defining non-credible responding as below chance level

show abstract

Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised

Cited by 35 publications

References 170 publications

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

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

Detecting Negative Response Bias Within the Trauma Symptom Inventory–2 (TSI-2): a Review of the Literature

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About