Cognitive "success" in the setting of performance validity test failure.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Savanna M Tierney, Anastasia Matchanova, Brian I Miller, Maya Troyanskaya, Jennifer Romesser, Anita Sim, Nicholas J Pastorek
{"title":"Cognitive \"success\" in the setting of performance validity test failure.","authors":"Savanna M Tierney, Anastasia Matchanova, Brian I Miller, Maya Troyanskaya, Jennifer Romesser, Anita Sim, Nicholas J Pastorek","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2023.2244161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although studies have shown unique variance contributions from performance invalidity, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of cognitive data in the setting of performance validity test (PVT) failure. The current study aimed to examine cognitive outcomes in this context.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two hundred and twenty-two veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive and performance validity measures. Standardized scores were characterized as Within Normal Limits (≥16<sup>th</sup> normative percentile) and Below Normal Limits (<16<sup>th</sup> percentile). Cognitive outcomes are examined across four commonly used PVTs. Self-reported employment and student status were used as indicators of \"productivity\" to assess potential functional differences related to lower cognitive performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among participants who performed in the invalid range on Test of Memory Malingering trial 1, Word Memory Test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Digit Span aged corrected scaled score, and the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition Forced Choice index, 16-88% earned broadly within normal limits scores across cognitive testing. Depending on which PVT measure was applied, the average number of cognitive performances below the 16<sup>th</sup> percentile ranged from 5 to 7 of 14 tasks. There were no differences in the total number of below normal limits performances on cognitive measures between \"productive\" and \"non-productive\" participants (T = 1.65, <i>p</i> = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of the current study suggest that the range of within normal limits cognitive performance in the context of failed PVTs varies greatly. Importantly, our findings indicate that neurocognitive data may still provide important practical information regarding cognitive abilities, despite poor PVT outcomes. Further, given that rates of below normal limits cognitive performance did not differ among \"productivity\" groups, results have important implications for functional abilities and recommendations in a clinical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2244161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although studies have shown unique variance contributions from performance invalidity, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of cognitive data in the setting of performance validity test (PVT) failure. The current study aimed to examine cognitive outcomes in this context.

Method: Two hundred and twenty-two veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive and performance validity measures. Standardized scores were characterized as Within Normal Limits (≥16th normative percentile) and Below Normal Limits (<16th percentile). Cognitive outcomes are examined across four commonly used PVTs. Self-reported employment and student status were used as indicators of "productivity" to assess potential functional differences related to lower cognitive performance.

Results: Among participants who performed in the invalid range on Test of Memory Malingering trial 1, Word Memory Test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Digit Span aged corrected scaled score, and the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition Forced Choice index, 16-88% earned broadly within normal limits scores across cognitive testing. Depending on which PVT measure was applied, the average number of cognitive performances below the 16th percentile ranged from 5 to 7 of 14 tasks. There were no differences in the total number of below normal limits performances on cognitive measures between "productive" and "non-productive" participants (T = 1.65, p = 1.00).

Conclusions: Results of the current study suggest that the range of within normal limits cognitive performance in the context of failed PVTs varies greatly. Importantly, our findings indicate that neurocognitive data may still provide important practical information regarding cognitive abilities, despite poor PVT outcomes. Further, given that rates of below normal limits cognitive performance did not differ among "productivity" groups, results have important implications for functional abilities and recommendations in a clinical setting.

成绩有效性测试失败时的认知 "成功"。
背景:尽管有研究表明成绩无效会产生独特的变异,但在成绩效度测试(PVT)失败的情况下,很难解释认知数据的意义。本研究旨在考察这种情况下的认知结果:222 名有轻度脑外伤病史的退伍军人接受了临床评估,并完成了认知和表现效度测量。标准分数被定性为正常范围内(≥第16个常模百分位数)和正常范围以下(第th个百分位数)。认知结果通过四种常用的 PVT 进行检验。自我报告的就业和学生状况被用作 "生产力 "指标,以评估与较低认知能力相关的潜在功能差异:结果:在 "记忆错觉测试 1"、"单词记忆测试"、"韦氏成人智力量表-第四版数字跨度年龄校正标度得分 "和 "加利福尼亚言语学习测试-第二版强迫选择指数 "中表现在无效范围内的参与者中,有 16%-88% 的人在各种认知测试中获得了大致在正常范围内的分数。根据所采用的 PVT 测量方法,在 14 项任务中,认知表现低于第 16 百分位数的平均人数从 5 到 7 不等。生产性 "和 "非生产性 "参与者在认知测试中低于正常值的总次数没有差异(T = 1.65,P = 1.00):目前的研究结果表明,在 PVT 失败的情况下,认知能力在正常范围内的表现差异很大。重要的是,我们的研究结果表明,尽管 PVT 结果不佳,神经认知数据仍可提供有关认知能力的重要实用信息。此外,鉴于 "生产力 "组之间认知能力低于正常限度的比率没有差异,研究结果对临床环境中的功能能力和建议具有重要意义。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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