College Students' Normative and Sub-optimal Performance on Three Brief, Public Domain Performance-Validity Measures for Concussion Baseline Testing: A Randomized Parallel Groups Trial.
Amber M Bankston, Rima P Malkan, Kaci K Garcia, Frank M Webbe
{"title":"College Students' Normative and Sub-optimal Performance on Three Brief, Public Domain Performance-Validity Measures for Concussion Baseline Testing: A Randomized Parallel Groups Trial.","authors":"Amber M Bankston, Rima P Malkan, Kaci K Garcia, Frank M Webbe","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaf025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We report normative data with non-athlete college students for three brief, public-domain performance validity tests (PVT) representing multiple performance domains: Rey's Word Recognition Test (WRT), Rey's Dot Counting Test (DCT), and A Random Letter Test of Auditory Vigilance (A-Test).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>One hundred fifty-four non-athlete college students (45% female; representing four college years) were recruited and assigned randomly to Honest-Effort, Fake-Bad, or Instructed Fake-Bad groups. Fifty student-athletes were selected randomly for comparison. Differences for multiple measures of each test among the three effort groups were obtained, and receiver operating curve (ROC) cut scores representing suboptimal performance were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only the WRT measures met normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions. Multivariate analysis of variance with post-hoc Tukey tests showed significant differences between groups for WRT Total Correct and Combination scores. For DCT Combination Score and Total Errors and A-Test Omission Errors and Total Errors, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis comparisons were conducted, each resulting in significant differences between Honest-Effort and sub-optimal performance (SOP) groups. Athletes also differed significantly from both SOP groups. ROC cut scores that suggested suboptimal effort were DCT Combination Score ≥ 15; WRT Combination Score ≤ 12; and A-Test Omission Errors ≥1. Measures were considered poor to excellent based on the area under the curve (AUC) percentages obtained through ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DCT Combination and A-Test Omission Errors were valid indicators of suboptimal performance. The WRT measures fell short of adequate prediction based on the AUC. Combining multiple PVT \"failures\" maximized identification of suspect performers and minimized inclusion of Honest-Effort participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: We report normative data with non-athlete college students for three brief, public-domain performance validity tests (PVT) representing multiple performance domains: Rey's Word Recognition Test (WRT), Rey's Dot Counting Test (DCT), and A Random Letter Test of Auditory Vigilance (A-Test).
Method: One hundred fifty-four non-athlete college students (45% female; representing four college years) were recruited and assigned randomly to Honest-Effort, Fake-Bad, or Instructed Fake-Bad groups. Fifty student-athletes were selected randomly for comparison. Differences for multiple measures of each test among the three effort groups were obtained, and receiver operating curve (ROC) cut scores representing suboptimal performance were reported.
Results: Only the WRT measures met normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions. Multivariate analysis of variance with post-hoc Tukey tests showed significant differences between groups for WRT Total Correct and Combination scores. For DCT Combination Score and Total Errors and A-Test Omission Errors and Total Errors, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis comparisons were conducted, each resulting in significant differences between Honest-Effort and sub-optimal performance (SOP) groups. Athletes also differed significantly from both SOP groups. ROC cut scores that suggested suboptimal effort were DCT Combination Score ≥ 15; WRT Combination Score ≤ 12; and A-Test Omission Errors ≥1. Measures were considered poor to excellent based on the area under the curve (AUC) percentages obtained through ROC analysis.
Conclusion: The DCT Combination and A-Test Omission Errors were valid indicators of suboptimal performance. The WRT measures fell short of adequate prediction based on the AUC. Combining multiple PVT "failures" maximized identification of suspect performers and minimized inclusion of Honest-Effort participants.
目的:报告非运动员大学生的三个简短的公共领域表现效度测试(PVT)的规范性数据,这些测试代表了多个表现领域:Rey's Word Recognition Test (WRT)、Rey's Dot Counting Test (DCT)和随机字母听觉警觉性测试(A-Test)。方法:154名非运动员大学生(女性45%;(代表四名大学生),并被随机分配到诚实-努力组、假-坏组和指导假-坏组。随机抽取50名学生运动员进行比较。获得三个努力组中每个测试的多项测量的差异,并报告代表次优表现的受试者工作曲线(ROC)切割分数。结果:只有WRT测量符合方差的正态性和齐性假设。采用事后Tukey检验的多变量方差分析显示,WRT总正确率和组合得分在两组之间存在显著差异。对于DCT组合得分和总错误以及A-Test遗漏错误和总错误,进行非参数Kruskal-Wallis比较,每个组在诚实-努力组和次优绩效组(SOP)之间均存在显著差异。运动员与两个SOP组也存在显著差异。提示次优努力的ROC cut评分为:DCT联合评分≥15;WRT组合评分≤12;a检验遗漏误差≥1。根据通过ROC分析获得的曲线下面积(AUC)百分比,将措施视为差或优。结论:DCT组合误差和a检验遗漏误差是考核亚优的有效指标。WRT措施未能充分预测基于AUC。结合多个PVT“失败”可以最大限度地识别可疑行为者,并最小化诚实努力参与者的参与。
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.