Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part II-Methodological Issues.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6
Christoph Leonhard
{"title":"Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part II-Methodological Issues.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forensic neuropsychological examinations to detect malingering in patients with neurocognitive, physical, and psychological dysfunction have tremendous social, legal, and economic importance. Thousands of studies have been published to develop and validate methods to forensically detect malingering based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests. This is Part II of a two-part review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering based on validity tests. The Part I companion paper explored key statistical issues. Part II examines related methodological issues through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and reanalysis of findings from prior validity test validation studies. Methodological issues examined include the distinction between analog simulation and forensic studies, the effect of excluding too-close-to-call (TCTC) cases from analyses, the distinction between criterion-related and construct validation studies, and the application of the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) in all Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) validation studies published within approximately the first 20 years following its initial publication to assess risk of bias. Findings include that analog studies are commonly confused for forensic validation studies, and that construct validation studies are routinely presented as if they were criterion-reference validation studies. After accounting for the exclusion of TCTC cases, actual classification accuracy was found to be well below claimed levels. QUADAS-2 results revealed that extant TOMM validation studies all had a high risk of bias, with not a single TOMM validation study with low risk of bias. Recommendations include adoption of well-established guidelines from the biomedical diagnostics literature for good quality criterion-referenced validation studies and examination of implications for malingering determination practices. Design of future studies may hinge on the availability of an incontrovertible reference standard of the malingering status of examinees.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Forensic neuropsychological examinations to detect malingering in patients with neurocognitive, physical, and psychological dysfunction have tremendous social, legal, and economic importance. Thousands of studies have been published to develop and validate methods to forensically detect malingering based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests. This is Part II of a two-part review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering based on validity tests. The Part I companion paper explored key statistical issues. Part II examines related methodological issues through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and reanalysis of findings from prior validity test validation studies. Methodological issues examined include the distinction between analog simulation and forensic studies, the effect of excluding too-close-to-call (TCTC) cases from analyses, the distinction between criterion-related and construct validation studies, and the application of the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) in all Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) validation studies published within approximately the first 20 years following its initial publication to assess risk of bias. Findings include that analog studies are commonly confused for forensic validation studies, and that construct validation studies are routinely presented as if they were criterion-reference validation studies. After accounting for the exclusion of TCTC cases, actual classification accuracy was found to be well below claimed levels. QUADAS-2 results revealed that extant TOMM validation studies all had a high risk of bias, with not a single TOMM validation study with low risk of bias. Recommendations include adoption of well-established guidelines from the biomedical diagnostics literature for good quality criterion-referenced validation studies and examination of implications for malingering determination practices. Design of future studies may hinge on the availability of an incontrovertible reference standard of the malingering status of examinees.

Abstract Image

从有效性测试中预测恶意软件的统计和方法论问题综述:第二部分方法论问题。
通过法医神经心理学检查来发现神经认知、身体和心理功能障碍患者的装病行为具有巨大的社会、法律和经济意义。已经发表了数千项研究,主要基于大约50项有效性测试,包括嵌入式和独立的性能和症状有效性测试来开发和验证从法律上检测造假的方法。这是一篇由两部分组成的综述的第二部分,综述了基于有效性测试的装病法医预测中的统计和方法学问题。第一部分的配套文件探讨了关键的统计问题。第二部分通过概念分析、统计模拟和对先前有效性测试验证研究结果的重新分析,研究了相关的方法论问题。所审查的方法学问题包括模拟模拟和法医学研究之间的区别,将太接近的案例排除在分析之外的影响,与标准相关的研究和结构验证研究之间的区分,以及在首次发表后大约前20年内发表的所有记忆损害测试(TOMM)验证研究中应用诊断准确性研究的修订质量评估工具(QUADAS-2),以评估偏倚风险。研究结果包括,模拟研究通常与法医验证研究混淆,构建验证研究通常被视为标准参考验证研究。在排除TCTC病例后,发现实际分类准确率远低于索赔水平。QUADAS-2结果显示,现有的TOMM验证研究都具有高偏倚风险,没有一项TOMM验证试验具有低偏倚风险。建议包括采用生物医学诊断文献中的既定指南,用于高质量标准参考的验证研究,并检查装病测定实践的影响。未来研究的设计可能取决于考生装病状态的无可争议的参考标准的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信