Comparing the cognitive bias scale and cognitive bias scale of scales to other personality assessment inventory validity scales for detecting noncredible memory dysfunction in a clinical veteran sample.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ryan W Schroeder, Rachel K Bieu, Makenna Snodgrass
{"title":"Comparing the cognitive bias scale and cognitive bias scale of scales to other personality assessment inventory validity scales for detecting noncredible memory dysfunction in a clinical veteran sample.","authors":"Ryan W Schroeder, Rachel K Bieu, Makenna Snodgrass","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2025.2464635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the three Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) were developed for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to assess for cognitive response bias in neuropsychological settings and populations. While cross-validation research to date has been supportive, the scales have yet to be validated in a clinically referred veteran sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients (<i>N</i> = 235) were clinically referred veterans who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. Individuals were classified into valid or invalid memory performance groups based on a criterion performance validity test. The CBS, the three CB-SOS, and multiple core and supplemental PAI symptom validity indices were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the CBS and the three CB-SOS had large correlations with multiple over-report validity scales, and high concurrent elevation rates were observed across many of the over-report validity scales. The greatest area under the curve rates (i.e. .70 or above) were seen for the CBS, two of the CB-SOS, and one psychiatrically focused validity index. When maintaining specificity at ≥90%, the CBS and two of the CB-SOS demonstrated the best sensitivity rates (i.e. 28-29%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the CBS and the three CB-SOS have strong positive relationships with psychiatrically-focused over-report validity indices, the CBS and two of the CB-SOS demonstrated the best classification accuracy rates for identifying noncredible memory impairment. The cutoff scores and classification accuracy findings are in line with other published research results, suggesting good generalization to a clinically referred veteran sample. Additional conclusions regarding other findings are drawn and discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"12-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","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/10.1080/13803395.2025.2464635","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the three Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) were developed for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to assess for cognitive response bias in neuropsychological settings and populations. While cross-validation research to date has been supportive, the scales have yet to be validated in a clinically referred veteran sample.

Method: Patients (N = 235) were clinically referred veterans who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. Individuals were classified into valid or invalid memory performance groups based on a criterion performance validity test. The CBS, the three CB-SOS, and multiple core and supplemental PAI symptom validity indices were examined.

Results: Both the CBS and the three CB-SOS had large correlations with multiple over-report validity scales, and high concurrent elevation rates were observed across many of the over-report validity scales. The greatest area under the curve rates (i.e. .70 or above) were seen for the CBS, two of the CB-SOS, and one psychiatrically focused validity index. When maintaining specificity at ≥90%, the CBS and two of the CB-SOS demonstrated the best sensitivity rates (i.e. 28-29%).

Conclusions: While the CBS and the three CB-SOS have strong positive relationships with psychiatrically-focused over-report validity indices, the CBS and two of the CB-SOS demonstrated the best classification accuracy rates for identifying noncredible memory impairment. The cutoff scores and classification accuracy findings are in line with other published research results, suggesting good generalization to a clinically referred veteran sample. Additional conclusions regarding other findings are drawn and discussed.

比较认知偏倚量表和认知偏倚量表与其他人格评估量表对临床退伍军人非可信记忆功能障碍的检测效果。
摘要:本研究为人格评估量表(PAI)开发了认知偏差量表(CBS)和三种认知偏差量表(CB-SOS),以评估神经心理环境和人群的认知反应偏差。虽然迄今为止的交叉验证研究得到了支持,但这些量表尚未在临床转诊的退伍军人样本中得到验证。方法:235例临床转诊退伍军人接受神经心理评估。根据标准效度测试,将个体分为有效组和无效组。对CBS、三个CB-SOS、多个核心和补充PAI症状效度指标进行检测。结果:CBS和3个CB-SOS与多个过报效度量表均存在较大的相关性,且在多个过报效度量表中均存在较高的并发抬高率。最大的曲线下面积率(即。70或以上)见于CBS、两个CB-SOS和一个精神病学关注的效度指数。当特异性维持在≥90%时,CBS和两种CB-SOS表现出最佳的敏感性(即28-29%)。结论:虽然CBS和三个CB-SOS与以精神病学为中心的过度报告效度指标有很强的正相关,但CBS和两个CB-SOS在识别非可信记忆障碍方面表现出最佳的分类准确率。截断分数和分类准确性的发现与其他已发表的研究结果一致,表明对临床转诊的退伍军人样本有很好的泛化。得出并讨论了关于其他发现的其他结论。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信