Use of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Digit Span subtest for malingering detection: A meta-analytic review

Jasinski, Lindsey J.; Berry, David T. R.; Shandera, Anni L; Clark, Jessica

doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.516743

Cited by 113 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, this finding is again in concordance with previous research in which higher levels of anxiety have been associated with lower performance in cognitive measures highly dependent on attentional resources . As the digit span task is highly sensitive to test effort , this might also be due to incomplete effort, which, however, cannot be answered on the basis of our data. Future studies might incorporate one or more validated measures of effort as control measure(s).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Affective state and cognitive functioning in patients with intracranial tumors: validity of the neuropsychological baseline assessment

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Affective state and cognitive functioning in patients with intracranial tumors: validity of the neuropsychological baseline assessment

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the effect sizes generated by this research are uniformly large, for example, d 5 21.34 for Reliable Digit Span (Jasinski, Berry, Shandera, & Clark, 2011); d 5 .96 for MMPI-2 FBS (Nelson, Sweet, & Demakis, 2006), replicated at d 5 .95 incorporating 43 new studies (Nelson, Hoelzle, Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, 2010); d 5 2.02 for the two-alternative forced choice Digit Memory Test . Additionally, the effect sizes generated by this research are uniformly large, for example, d 5 21.34 for Reliable Digit Span (Jasinski, Berry, Shandera, & Clark, 2011); d 5 .96 for MMPI-2 FBS (Nelson, Sweet, & Demakis, 2006), replicated at d 5 .95 incorporating 43 new studies (Nelson, Hoelzle, Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, 2010); d 5 2.02 for the two-alternative forced choice Digit Memory Test .…”

Section: Dialogue Responsementioning

confidence: 68%

Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment

Larrabee

2012

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

370

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failure to evaluate the validity of an examinee's neuropsychological test performance can alter prediction of external criteria in research investigations, and in the individual case, result in inaccurate conclusions about the degree of impairment resulting from neurological disease or injury. The terms performance validity referring to validity of test performance (PVT), and symptom validity referring to validity of symptom report (SVT), are suggested to replace less descriptive terms such as effort or response bias. Research is reviewed demonstrating strong diagnostic discrimination for PVTs and SVTs, with a particular emphasis on minimizing false positive errors, facilitated by identifying performance patterns or levels of performance that are atypical for bona fide neurologic disorder. It is further shown that false positive errors decrease, with a corresponding increase in the positive probability of malingering, when multiple independent indicators are required for diagnosis. The rigor of PVT and SVT research design is related to a high degree of reproducibility of results, and large effect sizes of d51.0 or greater, exceeding effect sizes reported for several psychological and medical diagnostic procedures. (JINS, 2012, 18, 625-631)

show abstract

“…Reliable Digit Span (RDS), which is an embedded effort indicator within all editions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, has been found to be a useful measure (Jasinski et al, ; Schroeder et al, ). Within a TBI sample, RDS has been found to have excellent classification accuracy for MND with regard to sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power (Mathias et al, ).…”

Section: Prospective Methods To Examine Response Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Traumatic Brain Injury: Guidance in a Forensic Context from Outcome, Dose–Response, and Response Bias Research

Sweet

Goldman

Breting

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs at a high incidence, involving millions of individuals in the U.S. alone. Related to this, there are large numbers of litigants and claimants who are referred annually for forensic evaluation. In formulating opinions regarding claimed injuries, the present review advises experts to rely on two sets of information: TBI outcome and neuropsychological dose-response studies of non-litigants and non-claimants, and response bias literature that has demonstrated the relatively high risk of invalid responding among examinees referred within a secondary gain context, which in turn has resulted in the development of specific assessment methods. Regarding prospective methods for detecting possible response bias, both symptom validity tests, for measuring over-reporting of symptoms on inventories and questionnaires, and performance validity tests, for measuring insufficient effort on ability tests, are considered essential.

show abstract

Use of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Digit Span subtest for malingering detection: A meta-analytic review

Cited by 113 publications

References 52 publications

Affective state and cognitive functioning in patients with intracranial tumors: validity of the neuropsychological baseline assessment

Affective state and cognitive functioning in patients with intracranial tumors: validity of the neuropsychological baseline assessment

Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment

Traumatic Brain Injury: Guidance in a Forensic Context from Outcome, Dose–Response, and Response Bias Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About