Lowered cutoffs to reduce false positives on the Word Memory Test.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Martin L Rohling, George J Demakis, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
{"title":"Lowered cutoffs to reduce false positives on the Word Memory Test.","authors":"Martin L Rohling, George J Demakis, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To adjust the decision criterion for the Word Memory Test (WMT, Green, 2003) to minimize the frequency of false positives.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Archival data were combined into a database (<i>n</i> = 3,210) to examine the best cut score for the WMT. We compared results based on the original scoring rules and those based on adjusted scoring rules using a criterion based on 16 performance validity tests (PVTs) exclusive of the WMT. Cutoffs based on peer-reviewed publications and test manuals were used. The resulting PVT composite was considered the best estimate of validity status. We focused on a specificity of .90 with a false-positive rate of less than .10 across multiple samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each examinee was administered the WMT, as well as on average 5.5 (SD = 2.5) other PVTs. Based on the original scoring rules of the WMT, 31.8% of examinees failed. Using a single failure on the criterion PVT (C-PVT), the base rate of failure was 45.9%. When requiring two or more failures on the C-PVT, the failure rate dropped to 22.8%. Applying a contingency analysis (i.e., X<sup>2</sup>) to the two failures model on the C-PVT measure and using the original rules for the WMT resulted in only 65.3% agreement. However, using our adjusted rules for the WMT, which consisted of relying on only the IR and DR WMT subtest scores with a cutoff of 77.5%, agreement between the adjusted and the C-PVT criterion equaled 80.8%, for an improvement of 12.1% identified. The adjustmeny resulted in a 49.2% reduction in false positives while preserving a sensitivity of 53.6%. The specificity for the new rules was 88.8%, for a false positive rate of 11.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results supported lowering of the cut score for correct responding from 82.5% to 77.5% correct. We also recommend discontinuing the use of the Consistency subtest score in the determination of WMT failure.</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/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314736","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To adjust the decision criterion for the Word Memory Test (WMT, Green, 2003) to minimize the frequency of false positives.

Method: Archival data were combined into a database (n = 3,210) to examine the best cut score for the WMT. We compared results based on the original scoring rules and those based on adjusted scoring rules using a criterion based on 16 performance validity tests (PVTs) exclusive of the WMT. Cutoffs based on peer-reviewed publications and test manuals were used. The resulting PVT composite was considered the best estimate of validity status. We focused on a specificity of .90 with a false-positive rate of less than .10 across multiple samples.

Results: Each examinee was administered the WMT, as well as on average 5.5 (SD = 2.5) other PVTs. Based on the original scoring rules of the WMT, 31.8% of examinees failed. Using a single failure on the criterion PVT (C-PVT), the base rate of failure was 45.9%. When requiring two or more failures on the C-PVT, the failure rate dropped to 22.8%. Applying a contingency analysis (i.e., X2) to the two failures model on the C-PVT measure and using the original rules for the WMT resulted in only 65.3% agreement. However, using our adjusted rules for the WMT, which consisted of relying on only the IR and DR WMT subtest scores with a cutoff of 77.5%, agreement between the adjusted and the C-PVT criterion equaled 80.8%, for an improvement of 12.1% identified. The adjustmeny resulted in a 49.2% reduction in false positives while preserving a sensitivity of 53.6%. The specificity for the new rules was 88.8%, for a false positive rate of 11.2%.

Conclusions: Results supported lowering of the cut score for correct responding from 82.5% to 77.5% correct. We also recommend discontinuing the use of the Consistency subtest score in the determination of WMT failure.

降低截止值,以减少单词记忆测试中的误报。
目的:调整单词记忆测验(WMT,格林,2003 年)的判定标准,尽量减少假阳性频率:调整单词记忆测验(WMT,格林,2003年)的判定标准,以最大限度地减少误判的频率:方法:将档案数据合并到一个数据库(n = 3,210)中,研究 WMT 的最佳切分。我们比较了基于原始评分规则的结果和基于调整后评分规则的结果,调整后的评分标准基于 16 个不包括 WMT 的成绩效度测试 (PVT)。我们使用了基于同行评议出版物和测试手册的临界值。由此得出的 PVT 综合结果被认为是对有效性状况的最佳估计。我们的重点是在多个样本中,特异性达到 0.90,假阳性率低于 0.10:每位受测者都接受了 WMT 以及平均 5.5(SD = 2.5)项其他 PVT。根据 WMT 的原始评分规则,31.8% 的考生不及格。如果在标准自定量测验(C-PVT)中只出现一次不及格,则基本不及格率为 45.9%。当 C-PVT 要求两次或两次以上不及格时,不及格率降至 22.8%。对 C-PVT 测量的两次失败模型进行或然率分析(即 X2),并使用 WMT 的原始规则,结果只有 65.3% 的一致性。然而,如果使用我们调整后的 WMT 规则,即只依赖 IR 和 DR WMT 子测试得分,以 77.5% 为临界值,则调整后的标准与 C-PVT 标准的一致性为 80.8%,提高了 12.1%。调整后,假阳性率降低了 49.2%,灵敏度保持在 53.6%。新规则的特异性为 88.8%,假阳性率为 11.2%:结果支持将正确回答的切分分数从 82.5% 降至 77.5%。我们还建议在判定 WMT 失败时不再使用一致性子测试得分。
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