Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Allyson G Harrison, Nathaniel Davin, Beth Pollock
{"title":"Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia.","authors":"Allyson G Harrison, Nathaniel Davin, Beth Pollock","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2422139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: Although performance validity tests (PVTs) are routinely administered in neuropsychological evaluations, they are employed less frequently in assessments for specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, likely due, at least in part, to the limited availability of PVTs to evaluate effort on measures of academic achievement. This is troubling, as previous research suggests that up to 24% of postsecondary students undergoing learning disability assessments produce noncredible test scores indicative of symptom exaggeration or low effort. This paper discusses normative data collected for the revised Dyslexia Assessment of Simulation or Honesty- Revised (DASH-R), a PVT developed specifically to identify symptom exaggeration or magnification during dyslexia testing. <b>Method:</b> We administered the DASH-R to three groups of students: honest responding controls (<i>n</i> = 48), students with documented dyslexia (<i>n</i> = 232), and students coached to simulate dyslexia (<i>n</i> = 42). Students were also administered measures of reading and processing speed. <b>Results:</b> DASH-R scores differentiated simulators from both honest responding controls and those with dyslexia. Further, ROC curve analysis showed that a composite feigning index score derived from the DASH-R could be used diagnostically to detect low effort; an optimal cut score of ≥4 on a seven-variable index yielded high specificity (≥98%) and good sensitivity (71%), with positive predictive accuracy of 86%. Creation of a 9-variable index that included errors on an additional reading test produced improved positive predictive accuracy to 96% while retaining excellent specificity (99%). <b>Conclusions:</b> The DASH-R appears to be a promising disability-specific measure for detecting feigned reading problems in young adults undergoing evaluations for dyslexia.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2422139","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although performance validity tests (PVTs) are routinely administered in neuropsychological evaluations, they are employed less frequently in assessments for specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, likely due, at least in part, to the limited availability of PVTs to evaluate effort on measures of academic achievement. This is troubling, as previous research suggests that up to 24% of postsecondary students undergoing learning disability assessments produce noncredible test scores indicative of symptom exaggeration or low effort. This paper discusses normative data collected for the revised Dyslexia Assessment of Simulation or Honesty- Revised (DASH-R), a PVT developed specifically to identify symptom exaggeration or magnification during dyslexia testing. Method: We administered the DASH-R to three groups of students: honest responding controls (n = 48), students with documented dyslexia (n = 232), and students coached to simulate dyslexia (n = 42). Students were also administered measures of reading and processing speed. Results: DASH-R scores differentiated simulators from both honest responding controls and those with dyslexia. Further, ROC curve analysis showed that a composite feigning index score derived from the DASH-R could be used diagnostically to detect low effort; an optimal cut score of ≥4 on a seven-variable index yielded high specificity (≥98%) and good sensitivity (71%), with positive predictive accuracy of 86%. Creation of a 9-variable index that included errors on an additional reading test produced improved positive predictive accuracy to 96% while retaining excellent specificity (99%). Conclusions: The DASH-R appears to be a promising disability-specific measure for detecting feigned reading problems in young adults undergoing evaluations for dyslexia.

在针对阅读障碍的心理教育评估中加强对次优努力的检测。
目的:虽然在神经心理评估中通常会进行成绩效度测验(PVT),但在针对特定学习障碍(如阅读障碍)的评估中却较少使用,这可能至少部分是由于用于评估学业成绩努力程度的成绩效度测验的可用性有限。这一点令人担忧,因为先前的研究表明,在接受学习障碍评估的中学后学生中,有高达 24% 的人的测试成绩不可信,这表明他们的症状被夸大或努力程度较低。本文讨论了为 "阅读障碍模拟或诚实评估修订版"(DASH-R)收集的常模数据,该测试是专门为识别阅读障碍测试中的症状夸大或放大而开发的。方法:我们对三组学生进行了DASH-R测试:诚实应答对照组(48人)、有诵读困难记录的学生(232人)和接受模拟诵读困难训练的学生(42人)。此外,还对学生的阅读和处理速度进行了测量。结果显示DASH-R 分数将模拟者与诚实反应对照组和阅读障碍患者区分开来。此外,ROC曲线分析表明,从DASH-R中得出的综合假装指数得分可用于诊断检测低努力程度;七变量指数的最佳切分≥4分可产生较高的特异性(≥98%)和良好的灵敏度(71%),阳性预测准确率为86%。创建一个包含额外阅读测试误差的 9 变量指数,可将阳性预测准确率提高到 96%,同时保留极佳的特异性(99%)。结论:DASH-R似乎是一种很有前途的残疾特异性测量方法,可用于检测正在接受阅读障碍评估的年轻成年人的假装阅读问题。
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
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
×
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