Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment
Abstract
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 d = 1.0 or greater, exceeding effect sizes reported for several psychological and medical diagnostic procedures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Of critical importance in clinical and research settings evaluating individuals with TBI is need to identify invalid responses.
“Of critical importance in clinical and research settings evaluting individuals with TBI is the need to identify invalid responses (Heilbronner et al., 2009; Larrabee, 2012).”
From Using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with traumatic brain injury. (2017) · cites this paper as Larrabee, 2012
Cites
Does positive affect influence health?
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.925 · Cited by 2,087 · see citing works
Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment.
McGrath, R. E., Mitchell, M., Kim, B. H., & Hough, L. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019216 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Disorders of diminished motivation
Marin, R. S., & Wilkosz, P. A. (2005) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/00001199-200507000-00009 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Metternich, B., Schmidtke, K., & Hüll, M. (2009) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.07.005 · Cited by 87 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In the context of the Metternich et al. (2009) model, sickness behaviors may interact with stress mediated biological factors that appear psychological yet disrupt cognition.”
BackgroundFunctional Connectivity of the Striatum Links Motivation to Action Control in Humans
Harsay, H. A., Cohen, M. X., Oosterhof, N. N., Forstmann, B. U., Mars, R. B., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5415-10.2011 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with traumatic brain injury.
Tulsky, D. S., Carlozzi, N. E., Holdnack, J., Heaton, R. K., Wong, A., Goldsmith, A., & Heinemann, A. W. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000174 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
- Authors
- Larrabee, G. J.
- Corresponding author
- Larrabee, Glenn J.
- Venue
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-08
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-630
- ISSN
- 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7661
- OpenAlex
- W2109780473
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 42.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- performance validity testing, symptom validity testing, malingering, response bias, false positives, diagnostic discrimination, neurological disorders, brain injury, neuropsychological assessment validity, multiple indicators
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Disability Evaluation, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Malingering, Memory Disorders, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review