当一项效能效度测试失败时,表明神经心理反应无效。

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Laurence M Binder, Philip K Martin, Ryan W Schroeder
{"title":"当一项效能效度测试失败时,表明神经心理反应无效。","authors":"Laurence M Binder, Philip K Martin, Ryan W Schroeder","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2025.2570302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> A commonly held rule in neuropsychology is that two performance validity test (PVT) failures are required to determine response invalidity. This study assessed whether there are exceptions to this rule based on the PVT administered and the magnitude of the failure. <b>Method:</b> 261 adult examinees completed a battery of neuropsychological tests as part of their clinical or forensic evaluations. These batteries contained 4-12 PVTs (mean = 8.1) and always included both the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Analyses were performed to assess associations between PVT failures. <b>Results:</b> 16.5% of examinees failed the TOMM at conventional cutoffs; 97.7% of these individuals failed at least one other PVT. RDS was failed by 14.2% of examinees; 75.7% of whom failed at least one other PVT. The TOMM was significantly more strongly associated than RDS with at least one additional PVT failure with a medium effect size. At a TOMM Trial 2 or Retention score of <43, 100% of examinees failed at least one other PVT. At an RDS cutoff of <4, 100% of individuals failed at least one additional PVT; this was not useful, because only one individual produced that score. <b>Conclusions:</b> While use of multiple PVTs is recommended, the current results suggest that failure on the TOMM, especially with Trial 2 or Retention <43, is sufficient for determining that test data are invalid if multiple PVTs are not available for analysis. Further research is recommended to cross-validate these findings and generalize the results to other PVTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When failure on one performance validity test demonstrates invalid neuropsychological responding.\",\"authors\":\"Laurence M Binder, Philip K Martin, Ryan W Schroeder\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2025.2570302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> A commonly held rule in neuropsychology is that two performance validity test (PVT) failures are required to determine response invalidity. This study assessed whether there are exceptions to this rule based on the PVT administered and the magnitude of the failure. <b>Method:</b> 261 adult examinees completed a battery of neuropsychological tests as part of their clinical or forensic evaluations. These batteries contained 4-12 PVTs (mean = 8.1) and always included both the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Analyses were performed to assess associations between PVT failures. <b>Results:</b> 16.5% of examinees failed the TOMM at conventional cutoffs; 97.7% of these individuals failed at least one other PVT. RDS was failed by 14.2% of examinees; 75.7% of whom failed at least one other PVT. The TOMM was significantly more strongly associated than RDS with at least one additional PVT failure with a medium effect size. At a TOMM Trial 2 or Retention score of <43, 100% of examinees failed at least one other PVT. At an RDS cutoff of <4, 100% of individuals failed at least one additional PVT; this was not useful, because only one individual produced that score. <b>Conclusions:</b> While use of multiple PVTs is recommended, the current results suggest that failure on the TOMM, especially with Trial 2 or Retention <43, is sufficient for determining that test data are invalid if multiple PVTs are not available for analysis. Further research is recommended to cross-validate these findings and generalize the results to other PVTs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2025.2570302\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2025.2570302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在神经心理学中,一个普遍的规则是需要两次效能效度测试(PVT)失败才能确定反应无效。这项研究评估了是否有例外的这一规则基于PVT管理和失败的程度。方法:261名成年考生完成了一系列神经心理学测试,作为他们临床或法医评估的一部分。这些电池包含4-12个pvt(平均= 8.1),并且总是包括记忆伪造测试(TOMM)和可靠数字跨度(RDS)。进行分析以评估PVT失效之间的关联。结果:16.5%的考生在常规分数线不及格;97.7%的考生至少有一门pds不及格,14.2%的考生RDS不及格;其中75.7%的患者至少有一次PVT失败。与RDS相比,TOMM与至少一次PVT失败的相关性更强,具有中等效应量。结论:虽然推荐使用多个pvt,但目前的结果表明,在TOMM上失败,特别是在试验2或保留
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When failure on one performance validity test demonstrates invalid neuropsychological responding.

Objective: A commonly held rule in neuropsychology is that two performance validity test (PVT) failures are required to determine response invalidity. This study assessed whether there are exceptions to this rule based on the PVT administered and the magnitude of the failure. Method: 261 adult examinees completed a battery of neuropsychological tests as part of their clinical or forensic evaluations. These batteries contained 4-12 PVTs (mean = 8.1) and always included both the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Analyses were performed to assess associations between PVT failures. Results: 16.5% of examinees failed the TOMM at conventional cutoffs; 97.7% of these individuals failed at least one other PVT. RDS was failed by 14.2% of examinees; 75.7% of whom failed at least one other PVT. The TOMM was significantly more strongly associated than RDS with at least one additional PVT failure with a medium effect size. At a TOMM Trial 2 or Retention score of <43, 100% of examinees failed at least one other PVT. At an RDS cutoff of <4, 100% of individuals failed at least one additional PVT; this was not useful, because only one individual produced that score. Conclusions: While use of multiple PVTs is recommended, the current results suggest that failure on the TOMM, especially with Trial 2 or Retention <43, is sufficient for determining that test data are invalid if multiple PVTs are not available for analysis. Further research is recommended to cross-validate these findings and generalize the results to other PVTs.

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
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
×
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