Proposing a more conservative Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Effort Index cutoff score for forensic inpatient populations.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Shelby Hunter, Amanda A Partika, Stephen R Nitch
{"title":"Proposing a more conservative Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Effort Index cutoff score for forensic inpatient populations.","authors":"Shelby Hunter, Amanda A Partika, Stephen R Nitch","doi":"10.1037/pas0001333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Effort Index (EI) may be unreliable at its standard recommended cutoff score when used with forensic psychiatric inpatient populations given high rates of genuine cognitive impairment. The present study sought to (a) examine the rate of invalid performance on the RBANS EI using the standard cutoff among incompetent to stand trial (IST) inpatients and (b) investigate the psychometric properties of the RBANS EI at various cutoff scores. This study was conducted using archival assessment data collected at a large forensic psychiatric hospital. Across the entire sample (<i>N</i> = 238, 79% male, <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 45 years, 24% primary Spanish-speaking), 79% were diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Experiment 1 of the study (<i>n</i> = 165) contained IST patients who were classified as having a valid presentation. Experiment 2 contained a valid (<i>n</i> = 46) and invalid (<i>n</i> = 27) presentation group comprised of postadjudication and IST inpatients, respectively. In Experiment 1, over one third (36.4%) of the valid presentation sample scored above the standard recommended EI cutoff. In Experiment 2, applying the standard recommended cutoff score of > 3 was associated with a false positive rate of over 20%. Obtaining < 10% false positive errors was achieved at a cutoff score of > 5. At this cutoff score, the estimated local base rate of invalid responding among IST patients was 28%. Clinical and forensic implications and recommendations for adopting this more conservative RBANS EI cutoff score are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001333","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Effort Index (EI) may be unreliable at its standard recommended cutoff score when used with forensic psychiatric inpatient populations given high rates of genuine cognitive impairment. The present study sought to (a) examine the rate of invalid performance on the RBANS EI using the standard cutoff among incompetent to stand trial (IST) inpatients and (b) investigate the psychometric properties of the RBANS EI at various cutoff scores. This study was conducted using archival assessment data collected at a large forensic psychiatric hospital. Across the entire sample (N = 238, 79% male, Mage = 45 years, 24% primary Spanish-speaking), 79% were diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Experiment 1 of the study (n = 165) contained IST patients who were classified as having a valid presentation. Experiment 2 contained a valid (n = 46) and invalid (n = 27) presentation group comprised of postadjudication and IST inpatients, respectively. In Experiment 1, over one third (36.4%) of the valid presentation sample scored above the standard recommended EI cutoff. In Experiment 2, applying the standard recommended cutoff score of > 3 was associated with a false positive rate of over 20%. Obtaining < 10% false positive errors was achieved at a cutoff score of > 5. At this cutoff score, the estimated local base rate of invalid responding among IST patients was 28%. Clinical and forensic implications and recommendations for adopting this more conservative RBANS EI cutoff score are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

为法医住院病人提出更保守的神经心理状态评估可重复电池(RBANS)努力指数临界值。
神经心理状态评估可重复性电池(RBANS)努力指数(EI)在法医精神病住院患者中使用时,其标准推荐临界值可能并不可靠,因为真正的认知障碍发生率很高。本研究旨在:(a) 检验无受审能力(IST)住院患者在使用 RBANS EI 标准截断值时的无效表现率;(b) 调查不同截断值下 RBANS EI 的心理计量特性。本研究使用的是一家大型法医精神病院收集的档案评估数据。在所有样本中(N = 238,79% 为男性,年龄 = 45 岁,24% 主要讲西班牙语),79% 被诊断为精神分裂症谱系障碍。研究的实验 1(n = 165)包含被归类为有效陈述的 IST 患者。实验 2 包括有效陈述组(n = 46)和无效陈述组(n = 27),分别由判决后患者和 IST 住院患者组成。在实验 1 中,超过三分之一(36.4%)的有效陈述样本得分高于标准推荐 EI 临界值。在实验 2 中,采用标准推荐分界值大于 3 时,假阳性率超过 20%。当临界值大于 5 时,误判率小于 10%。在此临界值下,估计 IST 患者的无效应答率为 28%。本文讨论了采用这一更为保守的 RBANS EI 临界分值的临床和法医意义及建议。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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