Anselm B M Fuermaier, Brechje Dandachi-Fitzgerald, Johann Lehrner
{"title":"提前退休索赔人的效度评估:贝克抑郁量表的症状夸大- II。","authors":"Anselm B M Fuermaier, Brechje Dandachi-Fitzgerald, Johann Lehrner","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2023.2206031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is a commonly used clinical measure; however, it contains no method to assess validity of self-report. The primary objective of this research was to examine the possibility of cut scores on the BDI-II indicating possible invalid symptom report in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Secondary objectives were to explore the utility of education specific cut scores and the effects of the criterion for invalid symptom report.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred and seventeen early retirement claimants (age range 19-64 years) presenting for forensic neuropsychological examination were considered for this study. Invalid symptom report was determined based on two independent self-report symptom validity tests. Further, all individuals completed the BDI-II as part of their routine assessment battery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Individuals with invalid symptom report (30.9%) showed significantly higher BDI-II scores compared to individuals passing symptom validity assessment. ROC analysis supports the utility of the BDI-II to differentiate valid from invalid symptom report, AUC = 0.822, <i>SE</i> = 0.032, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>95%-</i>CI = 0.760-0.884. A BDI-II cut score of 38 points reached a desired level of 0.90 specificity with 0.58 sensitivity. Secondary analysis indicated that the recommended cut score may vary depending on the educational level of the examinee. Further, results seem to be largely robust against the chosen criterion for invalid symptom report.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BDI-II appears to be a useful adjunct embedded validity indicator in forensic neuropsychological evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"712-718"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity assessment of early retirement claimants: Symptom overreporting on the Beck Depression Inventory - II.\",\"authors\":\"Anselm B M Fuermaier, Brechje Dandachi-Fitzgerald, Johann Lehrner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2023.2206031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is a commonly used clinical measure; however, it contains no method to assess validity of self-report. The primary objective of this research was to examine the possibility of cut scores on the BDI-II indicating possible invalid symptom report in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Secondary objectives were to explore the utility of education specific cut scores and the effects of the criterion for invalid symptom report.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred and seventeen early retirement claimants (age range 19-64 years) presenting for forensic neuropsychological examination were considered for this study. Invalid symptom report was determined based on two independent self-report symptom validity tests. Further, all individuals completed the BDI-II as part of their routine assessment battery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Individuals with invalid symptom report (30.9%) showed significantly higher BDI-II scores compared to individuals passing symptom validity assessment. ROC analysis supports the utility of the BDI-II to differentiate valid from invalid symptom report, AUC = 0.822, <i>SE</i> = 0.032, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>95%-</i>CI = 0.760-0.884. A BDI-II cut score of 38 points reached a desired level of 0.90 specificity with 0.58 sensitivity. Secondary analysis indicated that the recommended cut score may vary depending on the educational level of the examinee. Further, results seem to be largely robust against the chosen criterion for invalid symptom report.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BDI-II appears to be a useful adjunct embedded validity indicator in forensic neuropsychological evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"712-718\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"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/10.1080/23279095.2023.2206031\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2023.2206031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:贝克抑郁量表ii (BDI-II)是一种常用的临床测量方法;然而,它没有包含评估自我报告效度的方法。本研究的主要目的是探讨在法医神经心理学评估中BDI-II的减分表明可能无效症状报告的可能性。次要目的是探讨教育特定cut分数的效用和无效症状报告标准的效果。方法:选取了217名提前退休的申请人(年龄19-64岁)进行法医神经心理检查。无效症状报告是根据两个独立的自我报告症状效度测试确定的。此外,所有个体都完成了BDI-II作为其常规评估的一部分。结果:症状报告无效的个体(30.9%)BDI-II得分显著高于症状效度评估通过的个体。ROC分析支持BDI-II区分有效和无效症状报告的效用,AUC = 0.822, SE = 0.032, p 95%-CI = 0.76 -0.884。BDI-II切割评分为38分,特异性为0.90,敏感性为0.58。二次分析表明,推荐的分数线可能会因考生的教育水平而有所不同。此外,对于无效症状报告的选择标准,结果似乎在很大程度上是稳健的。结论:BDI-II在法医神经心理学评价中是一种有用的辅助嵌入效度指标。
Validity assessment of early retirement claimants: Symptom overreporting on the Beck Depression Inventory - II.
Objectives: The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is a commonly used clinical measure; however, it contains no method to assess validity of self-report. The primary objective of this research was to examine the possibility of cut scores on the BDI-II indicating possible invalid symptom report in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Secondary objectives were to explore the utility of education specific cut scores and the effects of the criterion for invalid symptom report.
Methods: Two hundred and seventeen early retirement claimants (age range 19-64 years) presenting for forensic neuropsychological examination were considered for this study. Invalid symptom report was determined based on two independent self-report symptom validity tests. Further, all individuals completed the BDI-II as part of their routine assessment battery.
Results: Individuals with invalid symptom report (30.9%) showed significantly higher BDI-II scores compared to individuals passing symptom validity assessment. ROC analysis supports the utility of the BDI-II to differentiate valid from invalid symptom report, AUC = 0.822, SE = 0.032, p < .001, 95%-CI = 0.760-0.884. A BDI-II cut score of 38 points reached a desired level of 0.90 specificity with 0.58 sensitivity. Secondary analysis indicated that the recommended cut score may vary depending on the educational level of the examinee. Further, results seem to be largely robust against the chosen criterion for invalid symptom report.
Conclusion: The BDI-II appears to be a useful adjunct embedded validity indicator in forensic neuropsychological evaluations.
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.