Relative Utility of Performance and Symptom Validity Tests

Copeland, Christopher T.; Mahoney, James J.; Block, Cady; Linck, John; Pastorek, Nicholas J.; Miller, Brian; Romesser, Jennifer; Sim, Anita H.

doi:10.1093/arclin/acv065

Cited by 31 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, PVTs were significantly associated with most measures of cognitive performance, whereas associations between SVTs and cognitive tests were variable. In general, results are consistent with the extant literature indicating associations among SVTs, PVTs, symptom measures, and cognitive tests (Armistead-Jehle & Buican, 2012;Copeland et al, 2016;Lange et al, 2010Lange et al, , 2012Whiteside et al, 2010). However, the present study extended these results to demonstrate that PVTs and SVTs each explain unique variance in symptom report, whereas only PVTs explain unique variance in cognitive performance.…”

Section: Simssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…On the other hand, Jurick et al (2019) found that individuals with elevated MMPI-2-RF validity scales reported both a higher level of symptomatology and performed more poorly on objective cognitive measures. This finding was supported by Copeland et al (2016), who reported that the FBS scale on the MMPI-2 was significantly correlated with greater self-reported neurobehavioral symptoms, as well as poorer performance on a verbal memory test. Martin et al (2015) found that a significant amount of variance in RBS scores on the MMPI-2-RF was accounted for by cognitive test performance; however, after adjusting for PVT failure, the relationship between neurocognitive test performance and symptom validity scales on the MMPI-2-RF was no longer significant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 56%

“…These studies suggest that performance validity and symptom validity represent distinct constructs. However, cross-sectional studies have revealed significant (albeit weak to moderate) correlations between SVTs and PVTs (Copeland et al, 2016; Larrabee, 2003; Whitney et al, 2008), suggesting that these two constructs are not completely independent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Ord¹,

Shura²,

Sansone³

et al. 2021

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the relationships among performance validity, symptom validity, symptom self-report, and objective cognitive testing. Method: Combat Veterans (N = 338) completed a neurocognitive assessment battery and several self-report symptom measures assessing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, sleep quality, pain interference, and neurobehavioral complaints. All participants also completed two performance validity tests (PVTs) and one stand-alone symptom validity test (SVT) along with two embedded SVTs. Results: Results of an exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution: performance validity, cognitive performance, and symptom report (SVTs loaded on the third factor). Results of t tests demonstrated that participants who failed PVTs displayed significantly more severe symptoms and significantly worse performance on most measures of neurocognitive functioning compared to those who passed. Participants who failed a standalone SVT also reported significantly more severe symptomatology on all symptom report measures, but the pattern of cognitive performance differed based on the selected SVT cutoff. Multiple linear regressions revealed Key Points Question: Are performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVT) measuring different constructs, and are they differentially related to cognition and clinical symptoms? Findings: Symptom validity and performance validity are distinct but related constructs, and both are associated with cognitive performance and with symptom self-report. Importance: A comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery should include both SVT and PVTs because they provide unique information about an examinee's performance. Next Steps: Further evaluation of specific symptom validity measures is necessary to assess distinct differences between symptom validity and symptom selfreport, as well as to determine whether higher cutoffs would be more appropriate for various populations, such as combat-exposed Veterans.

show abstract

Section: Simssupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Ord¹,

Shura²,

Sansone³

et al. 2021

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In light of the non-credible group's small sample size, these results ought to be interpreted with utmost caution. Yet, they may underscore divergence of results provided by SVTs and PVTs (Copeland et al 2016;Hirsch and Christiansen 2018;Larrabee 2012;Van Dyke et al 2013;White et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-credible symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD: development and initial validation of a new validity index embedded in the Conners’ adult ADHD rating scales

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a feasible target for individuals aiming to procure stimulant medication or accommodations, there is a high clinical need for accurate assessment of adult ADHD. Proven falsifiability of commonly used diagnostic instruments is therefore of concern. The present study aimed to develop a new, ADHD-specific infrequency index to aid the detection of non-credible self-report. Disorder-specific adaptations of four detection strategies were embedded into the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) and tested for infrequency among credible neurotypical controls (n = 1001) and credible adults with ADHD (n = 100). The new index’ ability to detect instructed simulators (n = 242) and non-credible adults with ADHD (n = 22) was subsequently examined using ROC analyses. Applying a conservative cut-off score, the new index identified 30% of participants instructed to simulate ADHD while retaining a specificity of 98%. Items assessing supposed symptoms of ADHD proved most useful in distinguishing genuine patients with ADHD from simulators, whereas inquiries into unusual symptom combinations produced a small effect. The CAARS Infrequency Index (CII) outperformed the new infrequency index in terms of sensitivity (46%), but not overall classification accuracy as determined in ROC analyses. Neither the new infrequency index nor the CII detected non-credible adults diagnosed with ADHD with adequate accuracy. In contrast, both infrequency indices showed high classification accuracy when used to detect symptom over-report. Findings support the new indices’ utility as an adjunct measure in uncovering feigned ADHD, while underscoring the need to differentiate general over-reporting from specific forms of feigning.

show abstract

“…There is less data available on correlations between SVTs, yet it is plausible that, like in PVTs, boundaries of score ranges keep intercorrelations low in clinical populations. Correlations between PVTs and SVTs are minimal-at least in authentic clinical populations-owing to the clear difference in methodology between PVTs and SVTs (i.e., cognitive tests vs. symptom inventories; see, e.g.,Copeland et al, 2016;Martin, Schroeder, Heinrichs, & Baade, 2015). Note that correlations between validity tests among individuals who present with noncredible symptomatology are not problematic because positive test results in these populations are, by definition, not false positive.Significant intercorrelations between validity tests are not the only route to overestimating post-test probabilities of noncredible symptomatology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

All that looks grave is not grievous. Not all those who wince are in pain

Impelen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chapter 1 General introduction Chapter 2 Biased symptom reporting and antisocial behavior in forensic samples: A weak link Chapter 3 Antisocial features are not predictive of symptom exaggeration in forensic patients Chapter 4 The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis Chapter 5 Detecting feigned cognitive impairment with Schretlen's Malingering Scale Vocabulary and Abstraction test Chapter 6 Differentiating factitious from malingered symptomatology: The development of a psychometric approach

show abstract

Relative Utility of Performance and Symptom Validity Tests

Cited by 31 publications

References 12 publications

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

Non-credible symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD: development and initial validation of a new validity index embedded in the Conners’ adult ADHD rating scales

All that looks grave is not grievous. Not all those who wince are in pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About