The Effects of Coaching on the Verbal and Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Tests

Abstract

Evaluation of resistance to coaching is an important step in the validation of symptom validity tests (SVTs) for clinical use in neuropsychological evaluations. In the present study coaching effects were evaluated for two recently developed SVTs, the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NVMSVT) as compared with a well-validated existing SVT, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). This study used a simulation design that included 103 healthy younger study volunteers who were randomly assigned into one of four conditions: Symptom Coaching, Test Coaching, Combined Coaching, or Best Effort Control. Specificity for all SVTs was excellent (96-100%). Test Coaching, either alone or combined with Symptom Coaching, was more effective than Symptom Coaching alone in producing raw scores suggestive of "better" effort for all SVTs. However, there were only modest declines in the obtained sensitivity, which remained above 80% for all SVTs. These results provide empirical support for the classification accuracy of the MSVT and NVMSVT, even when challenged with combined coaching interventions. However, further validation using known-groups designs and clinical samples is needed.

A Comparison of the Degree of Effort Involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test Using a Dual-Task Paradigm

“…Although similar findings have been reported for the TOMM (Jelicic et al, 2011;Powell et al, 2004;Weinborn, Woods, Nulsen, & Leighton, 2012), other studies have demonstrated that coaching can affect the test's predictive accuracy (Brennan et al, 2009;DenBoer & Hall, 2007;Sollman & Berry, 2011). The disparity in findings may be attributed to the different methods of coaching employed as well as whether a warning was given to participants regarding the potential for detection of poor effort (Weinborn et al, 2012). The availability of information regarding effort measures such as the TOMM is of significant concern as it facilitates lawyers to coach clients.…”

“…Although it is not known whether those in the control group were truly applying effort, inspection of the results revealed that all members of the control group had a near-perfect score. As identified by Weinborn et al (2012), it is also possible that the resistance to coaching may have been due to the type of coaching provided to the participants. Future research should therefore investigate the effects of more thorough coaching scenarios as well as investigate any differences on these measures between symptom-and test-based coaching.…”

Bridging the Gap Between Neurocognitive Processing Theory and Performance Validity Assessment among the Cognitively Impaired: A Review and Methodological Approach

“…Specifically, components that were deemed to be less likely to contribute to the overall PVT performance were (2011) 79 Batt et al (2008) 75.5 c Barhon et al (in press) 96 Bolan et al (2002) 100 Gervais et al (2004) 89 Green (2011) 93.5 Greve, Bianchini, & Doane (2006) 96 Greve, Bianchi, Black, et al (2006) 82 Merten et al (2007) 91.5 c Tan et al (2002) 80 Teichner & Wagner (2004) 24/91.7 Tombaugh (1996) 86.5 c Tombaugh (1997) 91.28 c Weinborn et al (2003) 83.3 Weinborn et al (2012) 100 c 876 A. Leighton et al…”

Indicators of suboptimal performance embedded in the Wechsler Memory Scale–Fourth Edition (WMS–IV)

“…This scenario was based on previous studies (Brennan & Gouvier, 2006;Brennan et al, 2009;Suhr & Gunstad, 2000;Tan, Slick, Strauss, & Hultsch, 2002;Weinborn, Woods, Nulsen, & Leighton, 2012) and the recommendations outlined by Suhr and Gunstad (2000).…”