Predictive utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF (MMPI-2-RF) in differentiating psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and epileptic seizures in male veterans

Modiano, Yosefa A.; Webber, Troy A.; Cerbone, Brittany; Haneef, Zulfi; Pastorek, Nicholas J.

doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107731

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Functional limitations, which include difficulty managing instrumental tasks of daily living (e.g., finances, medication management, driving), lower academic/occupational achievement, and reduced engagement in the community secondary to cognitive, physical, and psychiatric features (Terman et al, 2020), are not uncommon in this population. While people with epilepsy frequently present with cognitive (e.g., mental slowness, poor memory; van Rijckevorsel, 2006) and psychopathology symptom complaints (e.g., depression; Kanner, 2003), people with psychogenic nonepileptic events tend to endorse more items on scales of noncredible cognitive/somatic and psychopathology symptom reports (Del Bene et al, 2017; Locke et al, 2010; Modiano et al, 2021), as well as on scales of genuine somatic, neurological, and psychopathology symptom complaints after rigorously accounting for symptom invalidity (Modiano et al, 2021). There is also some evidence to suggest that performance invalidity is more common in those with psychogenic nonepileptic events than those with epilepsy (Drane et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of informant report interpretations: Role of examinee performance and symptom invalidity.

Webber¹,

Sullivan-Baca²,

Modiano³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) detect inaccuracies in examinee-completed measures, though methods for assessing the accuracy of informant reports—which may be inaccurate due to examinee deception, motivation for external incentives (e.g., disability payments), or attempts to validate examinee experiences—remain underexplored. We used a sample of 72 veteran-informant dyads undergoing evaluation of possible epilepsy-related neurocognitive disorder to assess the association between examinee response invalidity (i.e., performance and/or symptom invalidity) and informant report measures. Examinees completed PVTs, SVTs, cognitive, and self-report measures. Informants completed measures on examinee functioning and their own caregiver burden. Performance invalidity was defined as failure on two or more PVTs. Symptom invalidity for psychopathology symptom reports (SVT-P) and cognitive/somatic symptom reports (SVT-CS) were separately defined via above-threshold scores on two or more SVT criterion. Independent samples t tests demonstrated the associations of the PVT, SVT-CS, and SVT-P groups with informant-report measures. Informants for examinees with performance invalidity reported worse functioning in the examinee than informants for examinees in the valid performance group (medium-large effect sizes). Symptom validity status (for both SVT-CS and SVT-P) was meaningfully but less strongly related to informant-reported examinee functioning (small–medium effect sizes). Neither performance nor symptom invalidity was meaningfully related to informant-reported caregiver burden (negligible effect sizes). Informant reports for examinees with response invalidity should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of informant report interpretations: Role of examinee performance and symptom invalidity.

Webber¹,

Sullivan-Baca²,

Modiano³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The RBS has been shown to be highly sensitive for cognitive symptom validity across civilian (forensic and clinical), military, and veteran populations (Burchett & Bagby, 2022; Grossi et al, 2017; Jones et al, 2012; Jones & Ingram, 2011; N. W. Nelson et al, 2007; Sharf et al, 2017; Whitney et al, 2008; Wygant et al, 2010; Young et al, 2011), as well as shown clinical utility in a seizure disorder sample (Modiano, Webber, et al, 2021). Given the emphasis of the present study on detecting cognitive symptom invalidity and that other MMPI-2-RF validity indicators either assess noncognitive symptom invalidity (e.g., Fp-r assessing psychopathology symptom invalidity) or assess multiple types of symptom invalidity (e.g., FBS-r assessing both cognitive and somatic symptom invalidity), only the RBS scale was used in the present study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-validation and classification accuracy of informant report via the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) for identifying examinee-generated performance and symptom invalidity.

Choudhury¹,

Christensen²,

Miller³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Although informant report of examinee functioning has previously been associated with examinee-generated performance and cognitive symptom invalidity performance and symptoms validity test (PVT; SVT-C), extant data are limited, and empirically derived guidelines for interpreting informant-report validity are lacking. This study sought to (a) replicate the association of a widely used informant-report measure, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), and examinee-generated PVT/SVT-C in a larger/enriched sample and (b) recommend clinical cutoffs for informant-report invalidity. Method: Data were collected from 145 examinee–informant dyads who completed neuropsychological batteries as part of a routine workup in an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU). PVT status was determined using two approaches based on combinations of three indicators, whereas SVT-C status was determined using three approaches based on combinations of two indicators. Receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the classification accuracy of the DSRS for discriminating PVT/SVT-C status. Results: The DSRS demonstrated acceptable accuracy in classifying PVT and SVT-C status across operationalizations (PVT AUCs = .71–.77; SVT-C AUCs = .71–.74). Replication sample data indicated the DSRS accurately classified PVT status area under the curves (AUCs = .73–.80), with a large-to-very large effect size across operationalizations (d = −.99 to −1.51). Replication sample data indicated the DSRS was inconsistent in accurately classifying SVT-C (AUCs = .63–.72), though a medium-to-large effect size was observed across operationalizations (d = −.71 to −.98). Conclusion: We replicate previously published associations of informant-reported examinee functioning and examinee-generated PVT/SVT-C. The results suggest empirically derived psychometric guidelines for interpreting informant reports as noncredible on an EMU and lay groundwork for future investigations of informant-report response validity.

show abstract

Validity and Utility of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) on an Inpatient Epilepsy Monitoring Unit

Tierney

Webber

Collins³

et al. 2021

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictive utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF (MMPI-2-RF) in differentiating psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and epileptic seizures in male veterans

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Validity of informant report interpretations: Role of examinee performance and symptom invalidity.

Validity of informant report interpretations: Role of examinee performance and symptom invalidity.

Cross-validation and classification accuracy of informant report via the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) for identifying examinee-generated performance and symptom invalidity.

Validity and Utility of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) on an Inpatient Epilepsy Monitoring Unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About