Validation of grooved pegboard cutoffs as an additional embedded measure of performance validity

Link, Jared S.; Lu, Lisa H.; Armistead-Jehle, Patrick; Seegmiller, Robert A.

doi:10.1080/13854046.2021.1942556

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FCR RCFT = Forced Choice Recognition trial of the Rey Complex Figure Test (raw score;Abeare K et al, 2021;Rai et al, 2019). GPB Dominant = Grooved Pegboard Test, dominant hand (demographically adjusted T-score using norms byHeaton et al, 2004;Erdodi, 2021;Erdodi et al, 2017bErdodi et al, , 2018cLink et al, 2021). TMT-A = Trail-Making Test-Part A (demographically adjusted T-score using norms byHeaton et al, 2004;Abeare et al, 2019b;Ashendorf et al, 2017;Erdodi, 2021;Erdodi and Lichtenstein, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

Abeare

Cutler

An³

et al. 2022

Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Abbreviated neurocognitive tests offer a practical alternative to full-length versions but often lack clear interpretive guidelines, thereby limiting their clinical utility.Objective: To replicate validity cutoffs for the Boston Naming Test -Short Form (BNT-15) and to introduce a clinical classification system for the BNT-15 as a measure of object-naming skills.Method: We collected data from 43 university students and 46 clinical patients. Classification accuracy was computed against psychometrically defined criterion groups. Clinical classification ranges were developed using a z-score transformation.Results: Previously suggested validity cutoffs (≤11 and ≤12) produced comparable classification accuracy among the university students. However, a more conservative cutoff (≤10) was needed with the clinical patients to contain the false-positive rate (0.20-0.38 sensitivity at 0.92-0.96 specificity). As a measure of cognitive ability, a perfect BNT-15 score suggests above average performance; ≤11 suggests clinically significant deficits. Demographically adjusted prorated BNT-15 T-scores correlated strongly (0.86) with the newly developed z-scores. Conclusion:Given its brevity (< 5 minutes), ease of administration and scoring, the BNT-15 can function as a useful and cost-effective screening measure for both object-naming/English proficiency and performance validity. The proposed clinical classification ranges provide useful guidelines for practitioners.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

Abeare

Cutler

An³

et al. 2022

Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Erdődi et al (2017, 2018) also examined a cutoff of T ≤31 that increased sensitivity and decreased specificity for the combined GPB T-score of both hands. However, as mentioned previously, the psychometric value of these studies in conjunction with other studies of mTBI and military veteran samples, remains equivocal for predicting independently validated individual PVTs and discriminating between credible and noncredible GPB performance (Link et al, 2021; Sabelli et al, 2021). Finally, our finding that the GPB dominant hand raw score (as opposed to the demographically-adjusted T-score) had better classification accuracy may reflect the fact that raw scores may identify the minimal amount of effort needed more broadly, whereas demographically-adjusted scores may detect impairment more granularly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Only one study (Link et al, 2021) used the optimal empirically supported known-groups classification method of 0-1 criterion indicator failures to identify valid and ≥2 failures to identify invalid performance (Jennette et al, 2021;Rhoads et al, 2021). In this study, Link et al (2021) Although recent investigations have provided additional support for the validity of the GPB as an EVI, further cross-validation is necessary. Studies employing simulation designs, unique validity algorithms, or circumscribed samples without cognitive impairment (e.g., mTBI) have limited generalizability to general clinical populations in which the base rate of bona fide cognitive impairment is significantly higher.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within those studies of the GPB as an EVI that have relied on known-groups research designs, most were conducted with patients who presented with circumscribed mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI;Erd} odi et al, 2018;Sabelli et al, 2021;van Gorp et al, 1999) or with active duty and veteran military samples (Link et al, 2021). One study used a mixed clinical sample (Erd} odi et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By using several idiosyncratic validity algorithms, Erdődi et al (2017, 2018) found the GPB to be a promising EVI; however, they also found its psychometric value inadequate for predicting performance on independently validated individual PVTs (i.e., Warrington Recognition Memory Test [RMT] and Green’s Word Memory Test [WMT]; AUCs < .70). Only one study (Link et al, 2021) used the optimal empirically supported known-groups classification method of 0–1 criterion indicator failures to identify valid and ≥2 failures to identify invalid performance (Jennette et al, 2021; Rhoads et al, 2021). In this study, Link et al (2021) found that dominant hand, nondominant hand, and combined hand performance on the GPB demonstrated adequate psychometric value for discriminating valid from invalid performance that had been established via well-validated, independent criterion PVTs (i.e., Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT], Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]), with test sensitivities ranging from .44 to .61 and test specificities ≥.90 in a mixed veteran sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using the Grooved Pegboard Test as an Embedded Validity Indicator in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Validation Problems

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embedded validity indicators (EVIs) derived from motor tests have received less empirical attention than those derived from tests of other neuropsychological abilities, particularly memory. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) may function as an EVI, but existing studies were largely conducted using simulators and population samples without cognitive impairment. In this study we aimed to evaluate the GPB’s classification accuracy as an EVI among a mixed clinical neuropsychiatric sample with and without cognitive impairment. This cross-sectional study comprised 223 patients clinically referred for neuropsychological testing. GPB raw and T-scores for both dominant and nondominant hands were examined as EVIs. A known-groups design, based on ≤1 failure on a battery of validated, independent criterion PVTs, showed that GPB performance differed significantly by validity group. Within the valid group, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that only the dominant hand raw score displayed acceptable classification accuracy for detecting invalid performance (area under curve [AUC] = .72), with an optimal cut-score of ≥106 seconds (33% sensitivity/88% specificity). All other scores had marginally lower classification accuracy (AUCs = .65–.68) for differentiating valid from invalid performers. Therefore, the GPB demonstrated limited utility as an EVI in a clinical sample containing patients with bona fide cognitive impairment.

show abstract

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Erdődi

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCR CVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation.A single error on the FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance.Defining non-credible responding as below chance level

show abstract

Validation of grooved pegboard cutoffs as an additional embedded measure of performance validity

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

Using the Grooved Pegboard Test as an Embedded Validity Indicator in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample with Varying Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Validation Problems

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About