Validating the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition-Short Form Forced Choice Trial as an Embedded Performance Validity Indicator.

Cardinal Do, Alicia L Milam, Jason R Soble, Troy A Webber
{"title":"Validating the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition-Short Form Forced Choice Trial as an Embedded Performance Validity Indicator.","authors":"Cardinal Do, Alicia L Milam, Jason R Soble, Troy A Webber","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaf050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study validated the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition-Short Form Forced Choice Recognition Trial (CVLT-2-SF-FC) against an independent battery of criterion performance validity tests (PVTs).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ninety-eight veterans (mean age = 69.74 years) completed comprehensive outpatient neuropsychological evaluations that included the CVLT-2-SF-FC, Advanced Clinical Solutions Word Choice Test, Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1, and Reliable Digit Span from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test-Fourth Edition Digit Span subtest. Participants were diagnosed with cognitive impairment based on the comprehensive evaluations. Two criterion group approaches (Single Failure and Two Failure) were used to classify participants into invalid, valid with no neurocognitive disorder (NND), and valid with neurocognitive disorder (ND) groups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses tested the classification accuracy of the CVLT-2-SF-FC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using both grouping approaches, cut scores of ≤7 or ≤ 8 were associated with adequate specificities (≥0.90) and accuracy for identifying invalid performance in the total sample (AUCs = 0.71-0.81), albeit with modest sensitivities (0.41-0.50). Although the CVLT-2-SF-FC exhibited acceptable accuracy for differentiating between the invalid and NND groups with a cut-score of ≤8 (AUCs = 0.73-0.83), overall accuracy was reduced when differentiating between the invalid and ND groups (AUCs = 0.68-0.79), particularly when using the Single Failure classification (AUC = 0.68).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings add to the current knowledge of the CVLT-2-SF-FC as an embedded PVT, highlight the need to tailor cut-scores to different clinical groups, and support using this metric alongside other PVTs. Future studies should examine the CVLT-2-SF-FC's utility among larger samples that are more diverse with regards to age, sex, veteran status, and cognitive functioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study validated the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition-Short Form Forced Choice Recognition Trial (CVLT-2-SF-FC) against an independent battery of criterion performance validity tests (PVTs).

Method: Ninety-eight veterans (mean age = 69.74 years) completed comprehensive outpatient neuropsychological evaluations that included the CVLT-2-SF-FC, Advanced Clinical Solutions Word Choice Test, Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1, and Reliable Digit Span from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test-Fourth Edition Digit Span subtest. Participants were diagnosed with cognitive impairment based on the comprehensive evaluations. Two criterion group approaches (Single Failure and Two Failure) were used to classify participants into invalid, valid with no neurocognitive disorder (NND), and valid with neurocognitive disorder (ND) groups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses tested the classification accuracy of the CVLT-2-SF-FC.

Results: Using both grouping approaches, cut scores of ≤7 or ≤ 8 were associated with adequate specificities (≥0.90) and accuracy for identifying invalid performance in the total sample (AUCs = 0.71-0.81), albeit with modest sensitivities (0.41-0.50). Although the CVLT-2-SF-FC exhibited acceptable accuracy for differentiating between the invalid and NND groups with a cut-score of ≤8 (AUCs = 0.73-0.83), overall accuracy was reduced when differentiating between the invalid and ND groups (AUCs = 0.68-0.79), particularly when using the Single Failure classification (AUC = 0.68).

Conclusions: These findings add to the current knowledge of the CVLT-2-SF-FC as an embedded PVT, highlight the need to tailor cut-scores to different clinical groups, and support using this metric alongside other PVTs. Future studies should examine the CVLT-2-SF-FC's utility among larger samples that are more diverse with regards to age, sex, veteran status, and cognitive functioning.

加州语言学习测验-第二版-短形式强迫选择测验作为嵌入效度指标的验证。
目的:本研究通过独立的标准效度测试(pvt)对加州语言学习测试(第二版-短形式强迫选择识别试验)进行验证。方法:98名退伍军人(平均年龄69.74岁)完成综合门诊神经心理评估,包括CVLT-2-SF-FC、高级临床解决方案选词测验、记忆诈算测验-试验1和韦氏成人智力测验第四版数字广度子测验。根据综合评估,参与者被诊断为认知障碍。采用两种标准组方法(单失败和双失败)将参与者分为无效组、有效无神经认知障碍组(NND)和有效有神经认知障碍组(ND)。受试者操作特征(Receiver operator characteristic, ROC)分析检验了CVLT-2-SF-FC的分类准确性。结果:使用两种分组方法,切分≤7或≤8与总样本中识别无效性能的足够特异性(≥0.90)和准确性(auc = 0.71-0.81)相关,尽管具有适度的敏感性(0.41-0.50)。尽管CVLT-2-SF-FC在区分无效组和NND组时表现出可接受的准确性,cut-score≤8 (AUC = 0.73-0.83),但在区分无效组和ND组时(AUC = 0.68-0.79),特别是在使用单一失败分类(AUC = 0.68)时,总体准确性降低。结论:这些发现增加了目前对CVLT-2-SF-FC作为嵌入式PVT的认识,强调了为不同临床组量身定制切割评分的必要性,并支持将该指标与其他PVT一起使用。未来的研究应该检验CVLT-2-SF-FC在年龄、性别、退伍军人身份和认知功能方面更多样化的更大样本中的效用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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