2016
DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2016.1230181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The power of timing: Adding a time-to-completion cutoff to the Word Choice Test and Recognition Memory Test improves classification accuracy

Abstract: Time-to-completion cutoffs are valuable additions to both tests. They can function as independent validity indicators or enhance the sensitivity of accuracy scores without requiring additional measures or extending standard administration time.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
34
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
7
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The current findings provide a more nuanced perspective than earlier recommendations for choosing the optimal cutoff on the RMT and WCT (Davis, 2014;Erdodi, Tyson, Shahein, et al, 2017;M. S. Kim et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The current findings provide a more nuanced perspective than earlier recommendations for choosing the optimal cutoff on the RMT and WCT (Davis, 2014;Erdodi, Tyson, Shahein, et al, 2017;M. S. Kim et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Also, the WCT appears to be generally more robust to timing artifacts, with a cutoff of Յ47 maintaining specificity standards at both times. In terms of time to completion, the original Ն171-s cutoff (Erdodi, Tyson, Shahein, et al, 2017) performed well at both times. However, a more liberal cutoff (Ն150 s) cleared the specificity threshold at Time 2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…As part of this study, the discriminative capacity of each CPT measure was calculated and compared with that found in Study 1. We expected stability in the discriminative capacity of the measures between the studies, enabling the establishment of cutoffs with adequate specificity (>90%) and sensitivity levels of >50% (as achieved using other CPTs, for example; Erdodi, Tyson, et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Note . EVI: Embedded validity indicators; PVT: Performance Validity Test; RCFT: Rey Complex Figure Test; Y/N Rec: Yes/No recognition raw score; FCR: Forced Choice Recognition raw score; TOMM-1: Trial 1 on the Test of Memory Malingering ( Denning, 2012 ; Fazio et al., 2017 ; Greve et al., 2006 , 2009 ; Jones, 2013 ; Kulas et al., 2014 ; Martin et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2004 ; Rai & Erdodi, 2019 ; Webber et al., 2018 ); WCT: Word Choice Test [Fail defined as accuracy score ≤47 ( Barhon et al., 2015 ; Davis, 2014 ; Erdodi, Kirsch, et al., 2014 ; Pearson, 2009 ) or time-to-completion ≥156 seconds (Erdodi & Lichtenstein, 2020; Erdodi, Tyson, et al., 2017 ; Zuccato et al., 2018 )]; EI-5 MEM: Erdodi Index Five – Memory ( Fail defined as ≥4); EI-5 PSP: Erdodi Index Five – Processing Speed ( Fail defined as ≥4); BR Fail: Base rate of failure (% of the sample that failed a given cutoff); SENS: Sensitivity; SPEC: Specificity. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%