CVLT-II short form forced choice recognition in a clinical dementia sample: Cautions for performance validity assessment.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-30 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2079088
Karl S Grewal, Michaella Trites, Andrew Kirk, Stuart W S MacDonald, Debra Morgan, Rory Gowda-Sookochoff, Megan E O'Connell
{"title":"CVLT-II short form forced choice recognition in a clinical dementia sample: Cautions for performance validity assessment.","authors":"Karl S Grewal, Michaella Trites, Andrew Kirk, Stuart W S MacDonald, Debra Morgan, Rory Gowda-Sookochoff, Megan E O'Connell","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2022.2079088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Performance validity tests are susceptible to false positives from genuine cognitive impairment (e.g., dementia); this has not been explored with the short form of the California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT-II-SF). In a memory clinic sample, we examined whether CVLT-II-SF Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) scores differed across diagnostic groups, and how the severity of impairment [Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)] modulated test performance. Three diagnostic groups were identified: subjective cognitive impairment (SCI; <i>n</i> = 85), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a-MCI; <i>n</i> = 17), and dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD; <i>n</i> = 50). Significant group differences in FCR were observed using one-way ANOVA; <i>post-hoc</i> analysis indicated the AD group performed significantly worse than the other groups. Using multiple regression, FCR performance was modeled as a function of the diagnostic group, severity (MMSE or CDR-SOB), and their interaction. Results yielded significant main effects for MMSE and diagnostic group, with a significant interaction. CDR-SOB analyses were non-significant. Increases in impairment disproportionately impacted FCR performance for persons with AD, adding caution to research-based cutoffs for performance validity in dementia. Caution is warranted when assessing performance validity in dementia populations. Future research should examine whether CVLT-II-SF-FCR is appropriately specific for best-practice testing batteries for dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2079088","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Performance validity tests are susceptible to false positives from genuine cognitive impairment (e.g., dementia); this has not been explored with the short form of the California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT-II-SF). In a memory clinic sample, we examined whether CVLT-II-SF Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) scores differed across diagnostic groups, and how the severity of impairment [Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)] modulated test performance. Three diagnostic groups were identified: subjective cognitive impairment (SCI; n = 85), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a-MCI; n = 17), and dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD; n = 50). Significant group differences in FCR were observed using one-way ANOVA; post-hoc analysis indicated the AD group performed significantly worse than the other groups. Using multiple regression, FCR performance was modeled as a function of the diagnostic group, severity (MMSE or CDR-SOB), and their interaction. Results yielded significant main effects for MMSE and diagnostic group, with a significant interaction. CDR-SOB analyses were non-significant. Increases in impairment disproportionately impacted FCR performance for persons with AD, adding caution to research-based cutoffs for performance validity in dementia. Caution is warranted when assessing performance validity in dementia populations. Future research should examine whether CVLT-II-SF-FCR is appropriately specific for best-practice testing batteries for dementia.

临床痴呆症样本中的CVLT-II简式强迫选择识别:绩效有效性评估注意事项。
表现有效性测试容易出现真正认知障碍(如痴呆症)的假阳性;这还没有用加州言语学习测试II(CVLT-II-SF)的简短形式来探索。在一个记忆临床样本中,我们检查了CVLT-II-SF强迫选择识别(FCR)评分在不同诊断组之间是否存在差异,以及损伤的严重程度[临床痴呆评分框和(CDR-SOB)或迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)]如何调节测试表现。确定了三个诊断组:主观认知障碍(SCI;n = 85)、遗忘性轻度认知障碍(a-MCI;n = 17) ,以及阿尔茨海默病引起的痴呆症(AD;n = 50)。使用单因素方差分析观察到FCR的显著组间差异;事后分析表明,AD组的表现明显不如其他组。使用多元回归,FCR表现被建模为诊断组、严重程度(MMSE或CDR-SOB)及其相互作用的函数。结果对MMSE和诊断组产生了显著的主要影响,具有显著的相互作用。CDR-SOB分析不显著。损伤的增加不成比例地影响了AD患者的FCR表现,这为痴呆症表现有效性的基于研究的临界值增加了谨慎。在评估痴呆症人群的表现有效性时需要谨慎。未来的研究应该检查CVLT-II-SF-FCR是否适合用于痴呆症电池的最佳实践测试。
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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
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