东欧的效度评估:罗马尼亚混合临床样本中点计数测试和MODEMM对TOMM-1和Rey-15的交叉验证。

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Iulia Crișan, Florin Alin Sava
{"title":"东欧的效度评估:罗马尼亚混合临床样本中点计数测试和MODEMM对TOMM-1和Rey-15的交叉验证。","authors":"Iulia Crișan, Florin Alin Sava","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acad085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated performance validity in the understudied Romanian clinical population by exploring classification accuracies of the Dot Counting Test (DCT) and the first Romanian performance validity test (PVT) (Memory of Objects and Digits and Evaluation of Memory Malingering/MODEMM) in a heterogeneous clinical sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 54 outpatients (26 females; MAge = 62.02; SDAge = 12.3; MEducation = 2.41, SDEducation = 2.82) with the Test of Memory Malingering 1 (TOMM-1), Rey Fifteen Items Test (Rey-15) (free recall and recognition trials), DCT, MODEMM, and MMSE/MoCA as part of their neuropsychological assessment. Accuracy parameters and base failure rates were computed for the DCT and MODEMM indicators against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15. Two patient groups were constructed according to psychometrically defined credible/noncredible performance (i.e., pass/fail both TOMM-1 and Rey-15).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Similar to other cultures, a cutoff of ≥18 on the DCT E score produced the best combination between sensitivity (0.50-0.57) and specificity (≥0.90). MODEMM indicators based on recognition accuracy, inconsistencies, and inclusion false positives generated 0.75-0.86 sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities. Multivariable models of MODEMM indicators reached perfect sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities against two PVTs. Patients who failed the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 were significantly more likely to fail the DCT and MODEMM than patients who passed both PVTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results offer proof of concept for the DCT's cross-cultural validity and the applicability of the MODEMM on Romanian clinical examinees, further recommending the use of heterogeneous validity indicators in clinical assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"614-625"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12034522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample.\",\"authors\":\"Iulia Crișan, Florin Alin Sava\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arclin/acad085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated performance validity in the understudied Romanian clinical population by exploring classification accuracies of the Dot Counting Test (DCT) and the first Romanian performance validity test (PVT) (Memory of Objects and Digits and Evaluation of Memory Malingering/MODEMM) in a heterogeneous clinical sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 54 outpatients (26 females; MAge = 62.02; SDAge = 12.3; MEducation = 2.41, SDEducation = 2.82) with the Test of Memory Malingering 1 (TOMM-1), Rey Fifteen Items Test (Rey-15) (free recall and recognition trials), DCT, MODEMM, and MMSE/MoCA as part of their neuropsychological assessment. Accuracy parameters and base failure rates were computed for the DCT and MODEMM indicators against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15. Two patient groups were constructed according to psychometrically defined credible/noncredible performance (i.e., pass/fail both TOMM-1 and Rey-15).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Similar to other cultures, a cutoff of ≥18 on the DCT E score produced the best combination between sensitivity (0.50-0.57) and specificity (≥0.90). MODEMM indicators based on recognition accuracy, inconsistencies, and inclusion false positives generated 0.75-0.86 sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities. Multivariable models of MODEMM indicators reached perfect sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities against two PVTs. Patients who failed the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 were significantly more likely to fail the DCT and MODEMM than patients who passed both PVTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results offer proof of concept for the DCT's cross-cultural validity and the applicability of the MODEMM on Romanian clinical examinees, further recommending the use of heterogeneous validity indicators in clinical assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"614-625\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12034522/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acad085\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acad085","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究通过在异质临床样本中探索点计数测试(DCT)和第一次罗马尼亚工作效度测试(PVT)(物体和数字的记忆和记忆装病/MODEMM的评估)的分类准确性,在未被充分研究的罗马尼亚临床人群中调查工作效度。方法:对54例门诊患者(女性26例;法师= 62.02;SDAge = 12.3;教育程度= 2.41,教育程度= 2.82),采用记忆伪造测试1 (TOMM-1)、Rey十五项测试(Rey-15)(自由回忆和识别试验)、DCT、MODEMM和MMSE/MoCA作为神经心理评估的一部分。针对TOMM-1和Rey-15计算DCT和MODEMM指标的精度参数和基本故障率。根据心理测量学定义的可信/不可信表现(即TOMM-1和Rey-15均通过/不通过)构建两个患者组。结果:与其他培养相似,DCT E评分的截止值≥18产生了敏感性(0.50-0.57)和特异性(≥0.90)的最佳组合。基于识别准确性、不一致性和包含假阳性的MODEMM指标在≥0.90个特异性下产生0.75-0.86的灵敏度。MODEMM指标的多变量模型对两种pvt的特异性≥0.90,达到了完美的灵敏度。TOMM-1和Rey-15未通过的患者比通过两项pvt的患者更有可能不通过DCT和MODEMM。结论:我们的研究结果为DCT的跨文化效度和MODEMM对罗马尼亚临床考生的适用性提供了概念证明,进一步推荐在临床评估中使用异质效度指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample.

Objective: This study investigated performance validity in the understudied Romanian clinical population by exploring classification accuracies of the Dot Counting Test (DCT) and the first Romanian performance validity test (PVT) (Memory of Objects and Digits and Evaluation of Memory Malingering/MODEMM) in a heterogeneous clinical sample.

Methods: We evaluated 54 outpatients (26 females; MAge = 62.02; SDAge = 12.3; MEducation = 2.41, SDEducation = 2.82) with the Test of Memory Malingering 1 (TOMM-1), Rey Fifteen Items Test (Rey-15) (free recall and recognition trials), DCT, MODEMM, and MMSE/MoCA as part of their neuropsychological assessment. Accuracy parameters and base failure rates were computed for the DCT and MODEMM indicators against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15. Two patient groups were constructed according to psychometrically defined credible/noncredible performance (i.e., pass/fail both TOMM-1 and Rey-15).

Results: Similar to other cultures, a cutoff of ≥18 on the DCT E score produced the best combination between sensitivity (0.50-0.57) and specificity (≥0.90). MODEMM indicators based on recognition accuracy, inconsistencies, and inclusion false positives generated 0.75-0.86 sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities. Multivariable models of MODEMM indicators reached perfect sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities against two PVTs. Patients who failed the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 were significantly more likely to fail the DCT and MODEMM than patients who passed both PVTs.

Conclusions: Our results offer proof of concept for the DCT's cross-cultural validity and the applicability of the MODEMM on Romanian clinical examinees, further recommending the use of heterogeneous validity indicators in clinical assessments.

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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be 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