Validity assessment in clinical neuropsychological practice: evaluating and managing noncredible performance

Khan-Bourne, Najma

doi:10.1080/09602011.2022.2056675

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…◾ Administer several standalone and embedded PVTs through out the exam that tap (or appear to tap) various neurocogni tive skill domains, including attention, memory, processing speed, language, visual perceptual/spatial skills, executive functions, and fine motor skills so that performance valid ity can be tracked in real time and that specific strategies employed for underperformance (e.g., poor memory, reduced processing speed, motor impairment) can be detected. (Sweet et al, 2021), as well as reference books on PVT use in forensic and clinical practice (Boone, 2021;Schroeder & Martin, 2021).…”

Section: Clinical Takeawaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and symptom validity testing.

Brauer Boone

2024

Clinical Neuropsychology: A Pocket Handbook for Assessment (4th Ed.).

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of a neuropsychological exam are to objectively mea sure neurocognitive function across multiple domains (overall intelligence, attention, processing speed, memory, language, visual perceptual/spatial skills, executive abilities, academic skills, and fine motor function) and to document psychiatric symptoms and con ditions. Important decisions stem from conclusions derived from neuropsychological testing, and therefore it is critical that the test data obtained are accurate and representative of true skill level and actual psychiatric function.Malingering refers to deliberate feigning of symptoms for an external goal. External goals can include damages in a personal injury lawsuit, disability compensation, test accommodations for standard ized academic testing, access to medications, and being excused from criminal responsibility for illegal acts. Performance validity tests ini tially were referred to as malingering tests, and in 1999 a diagnostic algorithm was published for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (Slick et al., 1999), which was recently updated (Sherman et al., 2020).

show abstract

Section: Clinical Takeawaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and symptom validity testing.

Brauer Boone

2024

Clinical Neuropsychology: A Pocket Handbook for Assessment (4th Ed.).

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In stark contrast to this outdated practice, experts now seem to agree that patient groups cannot be unequivocally considered "bona fide comparison groups" for experimental simulation studies because invalid test results can and do occur outside of the medicolegal/forensic context. For example, in one of the studies included in this special issue, the percentage of SVT failure was as high as 18.1% in a group of individuals assessed prior to psychotherapeutic treatment (Dandachi-FitzGerald et al, 2023), and previous studies have observed similar failure rates in other clinical samples with different SVTs (Bodenburg et al, 2022;Dandachi-FitzGerald et al, 2016;Schroeder & Martin, 2022). Of note, certain SVTs sometimes seem to yield a relatively high number of positive results even in nonclinical contexts Zahid et al, 2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Assessing the credibility of clinical presentations using performance and symptom validity tests: Current trends and future directions—Part II.

Giromini,

Erdodi

2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This editorial article introduces the second special issue of Psychology & Neuroscience devoted to performance and symptom validity testing. The reason for including the second special issue is that we received an unusually large number of high-quality submissions that could not fit into a single volume. The articles included in this second part offer practical, immediately actionable knowledge to assessors while simultaneously advancing the methodology for calibrating instruments designed to evaluate the credibility of a given clinical presentation. In this introduction, we briefly summarize each article and reflect on an emerging epistemological question about the interpretation of noncredible results in the context of a clinical research study: If a relatively large proportion of clinical patients fail a validity test without any apparent external incentives to appear impaired, should this be interpreted as a possible vulnerability of that validity test to false-positive classifications or as evidence that noncredible responding is relatively common outside of medicolegal/forensic assessments? The methodological implications of symptom and performance validity research are discussed.

show abstract

Validity assessment in clinical neuropsychological practice: evaluating and managing noncredible performance

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Performance and symptom validity testing.

Performance and symptom validity testing.

Assessing the credibility of clinical presentations using performance and symptom validity tests: Current trends and future directions—Part II.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About