十五年后:提高高级临床解决方案表现有效性模块的分类准确性。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Laszlo A Erdodi
{"title":"十五年后:提高高级临床解决方案表现有效性模块的分类准确性。","authors":"Laszlo A Erdodi","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various <i>degrees of failure</i> (EI-ACS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The standard ACS model correctly classified 75-83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80-91% (VI-ACS) and 86-91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fifteen years later: Enhancing the classification accuracy of the performance validity module of the Advanced Clinical Solutions.\",\"authors\":\"Laszlo A Erdodi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various <i>degrees of failure</i> (EI-ACS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The standard ACS model correctly classified 75-83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80-91% (VI-ACS) and 86-91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"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/10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在根据外部标准测量评估高级临床解决方案(ACS)的性能效度模块,并比较其五个组成部分的两种备选汇总方法:方法:在 93 名患有创伤性脑损伤的门诊患者样本中,根据心理统计学定义的标准组对 ACS 进行评估。除了默认方法外,各组成部分的表现效度测试(PVTs)也按照单一截点进行了二分法(VI-ACS)或重新编码以捕捉不同程度的失败(EI-ACS):结果:标准 ACS 模型对 75-83% 的样本进行了正确分类。其他聚合方法的总体分类正确率更高:80-91%(VI-ACS)和 86-91%(EI-ACS)。轻度创伤性脑损伤的失败率高于中度/重度创伤性脑损伤。ACS五个组成部分中只要有一个不合格,PVT标准不合格的可能性就会增加3到8倍:结论:研究结果支持在 ACS 中使用标准 PVT 模块:这是一种有效的绩效有效性测量方法,对中度至重度 TBI 均具有稳健性。针对 ACS 单个组件的发布后研究以及 PVT 研究方法的进步为提高 ACS 模型的整体分类准确性提供了机会。通过严格的多变量 PVT 临界值并不表示表现有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fifteen years later: Enhancing the classification accuracy of the performance validity module of the Advanced Clinical Solutions.

Objective: The study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.

Method: The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various degrees of failure (EI-ACS).

Results: The standard ACS model correctly classified 75-83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80-91% (VI-ACS) and 86-91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.

Conclusions: Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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