Time and money: Exploring enhancements to performance validity research designs.

Abstract

Introduction: The study examined the effect of preparation time and financial incentives on healthy adults' ability to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation.

Method: A retrospective comparison of two TBI simulator group designs: a traditional design employing a single-session of standard coaching immediately before participation (SIM-SC; n = 46) and a novel design that provided financial incentive and preparation time (SIM-IP; n = 49). Both groups completed an ecologically valid neuropsychological test battery that included widely-used cognitive tests and five common performance validity tests (PVTs).

Results: Compared to SIM-SC, SIM-IP performed significantly worse and had higher rates of impairment on tests of processing speed and executive functioning (Trails A and B). SIM-IP were more likely than SIM-SC to avoid detection on one of the PVTs and performed somewhat better on three of the PVTs, but the effects were small and non-significant. SIM-IP did not demonstrate significantly higher rates of successful simulation (i.e., performing impaired on cognitive tests with <2 PVT failures). Overall, the rate of the successful simulation was ∼40% with a liberal criterion, requiring cognitive impairment defined as performance >1 SD below the normative mean. At a more rigorous criterion defining impairment (>1.5 SD below the normative mean), successful simulation approached 35%.

Conclusions: Incentive and preparation time appear to add limited incremental effect over traditional, single-session coaching analog studies of TBI simulation. Moreover, these design modifications did not translate to meaningfully higher rates of successful simulation and avoidance of detection by PVTs.