Cited by 92

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance validity test failure in clinical populations—a systematic review

McWhirter, Laura, Ritchie, Craig W, Stone, Jon, Carson, Alan·2020·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are widely used in attempts to quantify effort and/or detect negative response bias during neuropsychological testing. However, it can be challenging to interpret the meaning of poor PVT performance in a clinical context. Compensation-seeking populations predominate in the PVT literature. We aimed to establish base rates of PVT failure in clinical populations without known external motivation to underperform. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for studies reporting PVT failure rates in adults with defined clinical diagnoses, excluding studies of active or veteran military personnel, forensic populations or studies of participants known to be litigating or seeking disability benefits. Results were summarised by diagnostic group and implications discussed. Our review identified 69 studies, and 45 different PVTs or indices, in clinical populations with intellectual disability, degenerative brain disease, brain injury, psychiatric disorders, functional disorders and epilepsy. Various pass/fail cut-off scores were described. PVT failure was common in all clinical groups described, with failure rates for some groups and tests exceeding 25%. PVT failure is common across a range of clinical conditions, even in the absence of obvious incentive to underperform. Failure rates are no higher in functional disorders than in other clinical conditions. As PVT failure indicates invalidity of other attempted neuropsychological tests, the finding of frequent and unexpected failure in a range of clinical conditions raises important questions about the degree of objectivity afforded to neuropsychological tests in clinical practice and research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323776

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. 10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.010 · DOI
  2. Larrabee GJ . Assessment of malingering. In: Forensic neuropsychology: a scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 116–59.
  3. 10.1017/S1355617712000252 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/13854046.2014.884633 · DOI
  5. Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med, 6, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Green, 2015, Results from three performance validity tests (PVTs) in adults with intellectual deficits, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 22, 293, 10.1080/23279095.2014.925903 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/1097-4679(198609)42:5<792::AID-JCLP2270420519>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/arclin/acw014 · DOI
  9. Fazio, 2019, Use of the Rey 15-Item test as a performance validity test in an elderly population, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 26, 28, 10.1080/23279095.2017.1353994 · DOI
  10. Davis, 2018, Performance validity in older adults: observed versus predicted false positive rates in relation to number of tests administered, J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 40, 1013, 10.1080/13803395.2018.1472221 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/09084282.2010.523389 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/arclin/acw025 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/13854040600611392 · DOI
  14. Bar-On Kalfon, 2016, Cognitive functioning in fibromyalgia: the central role of effort, J Psychosom Res, 87, 30, 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.004 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/13854040590947380 · DOI
  16. 10.1300/J151v03n03_01 · DOI
  17. Tyson, 2018, Differentiating epilepsy from psychogenic nonepileptic seizures using neuropsychological test data, Epilepsy Behav, 87, 39, 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.08.010 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00611.x · DOI
  19. 10.1093/arclin/acq060 · DOI
  20. Van Der Werf, 2000, Abnormal neuropsychological findings are not necessarily a sign of cerebral impairment. A matched comparison between chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis, Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol Behav Neurol, 13, 199
  21. Roor, 2020, Feedback on underperformance in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: the impact on subsequent neuropsychological test performance, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 27, 188, 10.1080/23279095.2018.1519509 · DOI
  22. Erdodi, 2017, Low scores on BDAE complex Ideational material are associated with invalid performance in adults without aphasia, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 24, 264, 10.1080/23279095.2016.1154856 · DOI
  23. Maiman, 2019, Reliable digit span: does it adequately measure suboptimal effort in an adult epilepsy population?, Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 34, 259, 10.1093/arclin/acy027 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00611.x · DOI
  25. Hampson, 2014, Effort test performance in clinical acute brain injury, community brain injury, and epilepsy populations, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 21, 183, 10.1080/09084282.2013.787425 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/arclin/acr119 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/13854046.2015.1052763 · DOI
  28. TC, 2010, Functional neuroimaging of symptom validity testing in traumatic brain injury, Psychol Inj Law, 3, 50, 10.1007/s12207-010-9067-y · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.acn.2006.06.003 · DOI
  30. Macciocchi, 2017, Medical symptom validity test performance following Moderate-Severe traumatic brain injury: expectations based on orientation log classification, Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 32, 339, 10.1093/arclin/acw112 · DOI
  31. Erdodi, 2017, Wechsler adult intelligence Scale-Fourth edition (WAIS-IV) processing speed scores as measures of noncredible responding: the third generation of embedded performance validity indicators, Psychol Assess, 29, 148, 10.1037/pas0000319 · DOI
  32. Bodner, 2019, Performance validity measures in clinical patients with aphasia, J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 41, 476, 10.1080/13803395.2019.1579783 · DOI
  33. 10.1037/a0015444 · DOI
  34. Carone, 2014, Word memory test profiles in two cases with surgical removal of the left anterior hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 21, 155, 10.1080/09084282.2012.755533 · DOI
  35. Oudman, 2019, Effects of Korsakoff amnesia on performance and symptom validity testing, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 1
  36. 10.1016/j.acn.2007.06.003 · DOI
  37. 10.1080/13803390600693607 · DOI
  38. Rudman, 2011, An investigation into the validity of effort tests in a working age dementia population, Aging Ment Health, 15, 47, 10.1080/13607863.2010.508770 · DOI
  39. 10.1093/arclin/acp074 · DOI
  40. Wodushek, 2020, Comparing two models of performance validity assessment in patients with Parkinson's disease who are candidates for deep brain stimulation surgery, Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 27, 9, 10.1080/23279095.2018.1473251 · DOI
  41. Rossetti, 2018, Performance validity in deep brain stimulation candidates, Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 33, 508, 10.1093/arclin/acx081 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.schres.2005.02.016 · DOI
  43. 10.1080/13854046.2011.556668 · DOI
  44. Whearty, 2015, The evaluation of insufficient cognitive effort in schizophrenia in light of low IQ scores, J Psychiatr Res, 68, 397, 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.04.018 · DOI
  45. Lee, 2000, Performance of older depressed patients on two cognitive malingering tests: false positive rates for the Rey 15-item memorization and dot counting tests, Clin Neuropsychol, 14, 303, 10.1076/1385-4046(200008)14:3;1-P;FT303 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/S0887-6177(00)00064-0 · DOI
  47. 10.1080/13854046.2011.583280 · DOI
  48. 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00164.x · DOI
  49. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-304397 · DOI
  50. 10.1177/0956462412472802 · DOI
  51. Paul, 2017, Effort and neuropsychological performance in HIV-infected individuals on stable combination antiretroviral therapy, J Neurovirol, 23, 725, 10.1007/s13365-017-0557-5 · DOI
  52. Dorociak, 2018, Performance validity testing in a clinical sample of adults with sickle cell disease, Clin Neuropsychol, 32, 81, 10.1080/13854046.2017.1339830 · DOI
  53. Jones, 2016, Conversational assessment in memory clinic encounters: interactional profiling for differentiating dementia from functional memory disorders, Aging Ment Health, 20, 500, 10.1080/13607863.2015.1021753 · DOI
  54. 10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT545 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1093/arclin/act073 · DOI
  56. 10.1080/13854040903155063 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1016/j.pmr.2006.11.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 92

Metadata

Authors
McWhirter, L., Ritchie, C. W., Stone, J., & Carson, A.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-07-10
Volume
91
Issue
9
Pages
945-952
ISSN
  • 0022-3050
  • 1468-330X
Cited by
92
References
1
Language
en

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