Cited by 428Psychological Testing and AssessmentDeception detection and forensic psychologyHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment

Larrabee, Glenn J.·2012·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s1355617712000240

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larrabee, G. J.
Corresponding author
Larrabee, Glenn J.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
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