Boone

Glenn J. Larrabee

Greiffenstein

Heaton

Larrabee

Morgan

Rogers

Straus

Tombaugh

Vickery

AbstractFailure 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. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1–7)</jats:p

Crossref

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment

Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref