The relationship between performance validity testing, external incentives, and cognitive functioning in long COVID.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Douglas M Whiteside, Michael R Basso, Chen Shen, Laura Fry, Savana Naini, Eric J Waldron, Erin Holker, Jim Porter, Courtney Eskridge, Allison Logemann, Greta N Minor
{"title":"The relationship between performance validity testing, external incentives, and cognitive functioning in long COVID.","authors":"Douglas M Whiteside, Michael R Basso, Chen Shen, Laura Fry, Savana Naini, Eric J Waldron, Erin Holker, Jim Porter, Courtney Eskridge, Allison Logemann, Greta N Minor","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2312625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Performance validity test (PVT) failures occur in clinical practice and at higher rates with external incentives. However, little PVT research has been applied to the Long COVID population. This study aims to address this gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were 247 consecutive individuals with Long COVID seen for neuropsychological evaluation who completed 4 PVTs and a standardized neuropsychological battery. The sample was 84.2% White and 66% female. The mean age was 51.16 years and mean education was 14.75 years. Medical records were searched for external incentive (e.g., disability claims). Three groups were created based on PVT failures (Pass [no failures], Intermediate [1 failure], and Fail [2+ failures]).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 8.9% participants failed 2+ PVTs, 6.4% failed one PVT, and 85% passed PVTs. From the full sample, 25.1% were identified with external incentive. However, there was a significant difference between the rates of external incentives in the Fail group (54.5%) compared to the Pass (22.1%) and Intermediate (20%) groups. Further, the Fail group had lower cognitive scores and higher frequency of impaired range scores, consistent with PVT research in other populations. External incentives were uncorrelated with cognitive performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Consistent with other populations, results suggest Long COVID cases are not immune to PVT failure and external incentives are associated with PVT failure. Results indicated that individuals in the Pass and Intermediate groups showed no evidence for significant cognitive deficits, but the Fail group had significantly poorer cognitive performance. Thus, PVTs should be routinely administered in Long COVID cases and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2312625","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Performance validity test (PVT) failures occur in clinical practice and at higher rates with external incentives. However, little PVT research has been applied to the Long COVID population. This study aims to address this gap.

Methods: Participants were 247 consecutive individuals with Long COVID seen for neuropsychological evaluation who completed 4 PVTs and a standardized neuropsychological battery. The sample was 84.2% White and 66% female. The mean age was 51.16 years and mean education was 14.75 years. Medical records were searched for external incentive (e.g., disability claims). Three groups were created based on PVT failures (Pass [no failures], Intermediate [1 failure], and Fail [2+ failures]).

Results: A total of 8.9% participants failed 2+ PVTs, 6.4% failed one PVT, and 85% passed PVTs. From the full sample, 25.1% were identified with external incentive. However, there was a significant difference between the rates of external incentives in the Fail group (54.5%) compared to the Pass (22.1%) and Intermediate (20%) groups. Further, the Fail group had lower cognitive scores and higher frequency of impaired range scores, consistent with PVT research in other populations. External incentives were uncorrelated with cognitive performance.

Conclusions: Consistent with other populations, results suggest Long COVID cases are not immune to PVT failure and external incentives are associated with PVT failure. Results indicated that individuals in the Pass and Intermediate groups showed no evidence for significant cognitive deficits, but the Fail group had significantly poorer cognitive performance. Thus, PVTs should be routinely administered in Long COVID cases and research.

长期 COVID 的绩效效度测试、外部激励和认知功能之间的关系。
介绍:临床实践中会出现性能效度测试(PVT)失败的情况,在外部激励下失败率更高。然而,针对 Long COVID 群体的性能效度测试研究却少之又少。本研究旨在填补这一空白:研究对象为 247 名连续接受神经心理评估的 Long COVID 患者,他们完成了 4 次 PVT 和标准化神经心理测试。样本中 84.2% 为白人,66% 为女性。平均年龄为 51.16 岁,平均受教育年限为 14.75 年。对医疗记录进行了外部激励(如残疾索赔)搜索。根据 PVT 失败率分为三组(通过 [无失败]、中等 [1 次失败] 和失败 [2 次以上失败]):结果:共有 8.9% 的参与者未通过 2 次以上的自测试,6.4% 的参与者未通过 1 次自测试,85% 的参与者通过了自测试。在全部样本中,有 25.1%的人被认定受到了外部激励。然而,与及格组(22.1%)和中等组(20%)相比,不及格组(54.5%)的外部激励率存在显著差异。此外,不及格组的认知分数较低,范围分数受损的频率较高,这与其他人群的 PVT 研究结果一致。外部激励与认知表现无关:与其他人群一致,结果表明长COVID病例并不能避免PVT失败,外部激励与PVT失败有关。结果表明,合格组和中等组的个体没有证据表明存在明显的认知缺陷,但失败组的认知表现明显较差。因此,在长COVID病例和研究中应常规进行PVT。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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