Importance of validity testing in psychiatric assessment: evidence from a sample of multimorbid post-9/11 veterans.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-28 DOI:10.1017/S1355617723000711
Sahra Kim, Alyssa Currao, Emma Brown, William P Milberg, Catherine B Fortier
{"title":"Importance of validity testing in psychiatric assessment: evidence from a sample of multimorbid post-9/11 veterans.","authors":"Sahra Kim, Alyssa Currao, Emma Brown, William P Milberg, Catherine B Fortier","doi":"10.1017/S1355617723000711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Performance validity (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are necessary components of neuropsychological testing to identify suboptimal performances and response bias that may impact diagnosis and treatment. The current study examined the clinical and functional characteristics of veterans who failed PVTs and the relationship between PVT and SVT failures.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Five hundred and sixteen post-9/11 veterans participated in clinical interviews, neuropsychological testing, and several validity measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Veterans who failed 2+ PVTs performed significantly worse than veterans who failed one PVT in verbal memory (Cohen's <i>d =</i> .60-.69), processing speed (Cohen's <i>d =</i> .68), working memory (Cohen's <i>d</i> = .98), and visual memory (Cohen's <i>d =</i> .88-1.10). Individuals with 2+ PVT failures had greater posttraumatic stress (PTS; <i>β</i> = 0.16; <i>p</i> = .0002), and worse self-reported depression (<i>β</i> = 0.17; <i>p</i> = .0001), anxiety (<i>β</i> = 0.15; <i>p</i> = .0007), sleep (<i>β</i> = 0.10; <i>p</i> = .0233), and functional outcomes (<i>β</i> = 0.15; <i>p</i> = .0009) compared to veterans who passed PVTs. 7.8% veterans failed the SVT (Validity-10; ≥19 cutoff); Multiple PVT failures were significantly associated with Validity-10 failure at the ≥19 and ≥23 cutoffs (<i>p</i>'s < .0012). The Validity-10 had moderate correspondence in predicting 2+ PVTs failures (<i>AUC</i> = 0.83; <i>95% CI</i> = 0.76, 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PVT failures are associated with psychiatric factors, but not traumatic brain injury (TBI). PVT failures predict SVT failure and vice versa. Standard care should include SVTs and PVTs in all clinical assessments, not just neuropsychological assessments, particularly in clinically complex populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723000711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Performance validity (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are necessary components of neuropsychological testing to identify suboptimal performances and response bias that may impact diagnosis and treatment. The current study examined the clinical and functional characteristics of veterans who failed PVTs and the relationship between PVT and SVT failures.

Method: Five hundred and sixteen post-9/11 veterans participated in clinical interviews, neuropsychological testing, and several validity measures.

Results: Veterans who failed 2+ PVTs performed significantly worse than veterans who failed one PVT in verbal memory (Cohen's d = .60-.69), processing speed (Cohen's d = .68), working memory (Cohen's d = .98), and visual memory (Cohen's d = .88-1.10). Individuals with 2+ PVT failures had greater posttraumatic stress (PTS; β = 0.16; p = .0002), and worse self-reported depression (β = 0.17; p = .0001), anxiety (β = 0.15; p = .0007), sleep (β = 0.10; p = .0233), and functional outcomes (β = 0.15; p = .0009) compared to veterans who passed PVTs. 7.8% veterans failed the SVT (Validity-10; ≥19 cutoff); Multiple PVT failures were significantly associated with Validity-10 failure at the ≥19 and ≥23 cutoffs (p's < .0012). The Validity-10 had moderate correspondence in predicting 2+ PVTs failures (AUC = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.76, 0.91).

Conclusion: PVT failures are associated with psychiatric factors, but not traumatic brain injury (TBI). PVT failures predict SVT failure and vice versa. Standard care should include SVTs and PVTs in all clinical assessments, not just neuropsychological assessments, particularly in clinically complex populations.

效度检验在精神病评估中的重要性:来自9/11后多重疾病退伍军人样本的证据。
目的:效能效度测试和症状效度测试是神经心理学测试中识别可能影响诊断和治疗的次优效能和反应偏差的必要组成部分。本研究旨在探讨退伍军人PVT失败的临床和功能特点,以及PVT与SVT失败的关系。方法:对516名9.11后退伍军人进行临床访谈、神经心理测试和多项效度测量。结果:2+ PVT不及格的退伍军人在言语记忆(Cohen’s d = 0.60 ~ 0.69)、处理速度(Cohen’s d = 0.68)、工作记忆(Cohen’s d = 0.98)和视觉记忆(Cohen’s d = 0.88 ~ 1.10)方面的表现明显差于1 + PVT不及格的退伍军人。2+ PVT失败的个体有更大的创伤后应激(PTS;β = 0.16;P = 0.0002),自我报告的抑郁更严重(β = 0.17;P = 0.0001),焦虑(β = 0.15;P = 0.0007),睡眠(β = 0.10;P = 0.0233)和功能结局(β = 0.15;p = .0009)与通过pvt的退伍军人相比。7.8%的退伍军人没有通过SVT (Validity-10;≥19日截止);在≥19和≥23截止点时,多次PVT失败与有效性-10失败显著相关(p < 0.0012)。效度-10在预测2+ pvt失败方面有中等程度的相关性(AUC = 0.83;95% ci = 0.76, 0.91)。结论:PVT失败与精神因素有关,与创伤性脑损伤(TBI)无关。PVT故障预测SVT故障,反之亦然。标准治疗应在所有临床评估中包括室速和室速,而不仅仅是神经心理学评估,特别是在临床复杂人群中。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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