Victoria symptom validity test: Efficiency for detecting feigned memory impairment and relationship to neuropsychological tests and MMPI-2 validity scales

Abstract

Error scores and response times from a computer-administered, forced-choice recognition test of symptom validity were evaluated for efficiency in detecting feigned memory deficits. Participants included controls (n = 95), experimental malingerers (n = 43), compensation-seeking patients (n = 206), and patients not seeking financial compensation (n = 32). Adopting a three-level cut-score system that classified participant performance as malingered, questionable, or valid greatly improved sensitivity with relatively little impact on specificity. For error scores, convergent validity was found to be adequate and divergent validity was found to be excellent. Although response times showed promise for assisting in the detection of feigned impairment, divergent and convergent validity were weaker, suggesting somewhat less utility than error scores.

Applications of Computer-based Neuropsychological Assessment

“…The VSVT is a Windows-based computerized task that has been used to classify malingerers of memory deficits, questionable malingerers, or valid test-takers with a high degree of sensitivity, 82 and cut-off scores have been developed for this purpose. 83 Computerized assessments using the VSVT yielded unique intraindividual variability data that helped differentiate among those feigning symptoms related to head trauma and those performing their best, and the response inconsistency across testing sessions is believed to be a clinically useful measure for the detection of malingering.…”

The Development of the Inventory of Problems–29: A Brief Self-Administered Measure for Discriminating Bona Fide From Feigned Psychiatric and Cognitive Complaints

“…Thus, by exerting inadequate or suboptimal effort, feigners often perform more poorly than individuals with genuine cognitive impairment. Examples of these instruments include the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick, Hopp, Strauss, & Thompson, 2005), and the Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, Allen, & Astner, 1996).…”

Use of MMPI-2 to predict cognitive effort: A hierarchically optimal classification tree analysis

“…In addition to the MMPI-2, all respondents completed a variety of neuropsychological measures as part of their comprehensive evaluation, and forcedchoice effort measures. Effort tests included the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick et al, 1995), the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), the Multi-Digit Memory Test (MDMT; Niccolls & Bolter, 1991), the Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), and the Letter Memory Test (LMT; Inman et al, 1998).…”

“…A previous meta-analysis (Vickery et al, 2001) found the Digit Memory Test (DMT; Hiscock & Hiscock, 1989) to be most effective in identifying IE relative to other effort measures examined, including non-forced-choice measures. Similar forced-choice measures, such as the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick et al, 1995), the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), Multi-Digit Memory Test (MDMT; Niccolls & Bolter, 1991), Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), and the Letter Memory Test (LMT; Inman et al, 1998) have also demonstrated respective utility in civil and simulating samples.…”