American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.

The Clinical neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2021-08-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-06 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036
Jerry J Sweet, Robert L Heilbronner, Joel E Morgan, Glenn J Larrabee, Martin L Rohling, Kyle B Boone, Michael W Kirkwood, Ryan W Schroeder, Julie A Suhr
{"title":"American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.","authors":"Jerry J Sweet, Robert L Heilbronner, Joel E Morgan, Glenn J Larrabee, Martin L Rohling, Kyle B Boone, Michael W Kirkwood, Ryan W Schroeder, Julie A Suhr","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' <b>Methods:</b> In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. <b>Results:</b> Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. <b>Conclusions/Importance:</b> In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1053-1106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures.

美国临床神经心理学学会(AACN) 2021年效度评估共识声明:更新2009年AACN共识会议关于努力、反应偏差和装病的神经心理学评估声明。
目的:2009年AACN效度评估共识声明的引用和下载数据表明,该主题在随后的几年中保持了很高的关注度,在此期间,关键术语不断演变,相关实证研究激增。总的目标是为临床神经心理学社区提供有关这一重要主题的当前指导,具体的更新目标是:确定与效度评估相关的术语的当前关键定义;了解专家认为应该从原始共识文件中重申的内容,以及新的共识点;并纳入有关有效性测试使用的最新建议,以及术语“装病”的当前应用。方法:在2019年春季,对2009年原工作组主席中的4名和每个工作组的额外专家进行了小组讨论。共有20人分享想法并撰写草稿,直到2021年1月21日达成共识。结果:对既往重点的肯定和新重点的创造达成了共识,这些重点将继续获得临床和科学的支持。由此产生的共识声明涉及定义和鉴别诊断,性能和症状有效性评估,以及研究设计和统计问题。结论/重要性:为了提供诊断和解释的依据,目前的共识是,所有临床和法医评估都必须主动解决神经心理学和心理测试结果的有效性。有一个强大的和不断增长的基于证据的文献,从业人员可以自信地基于他们的判断,关于有效性措施的选择和解释。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书