点计数测验在痴呆临床环境中的效能效度。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-29 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2023.2207125
Sanam Monjazeb, Timothy A Crowell
{"title":"点计数测验在痴呆临床环境中的效能效度。","authors":"Sanam Monjazeb, Timothy A Crowell","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2023.2207125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the utility of a performance validity test (PVT), the Dot Counting Test (DCT), in individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluations for dementia. We investigated specificity rates of the DCT Effort Index score (E-Score) and various individual DCT scores (based on completion time/errors) to further establish appropriate cutoff scores.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional study included 56 non-litigating, validly performing older adults with no/minimal, mild, or major cognitive impairment. Cutoffs associated with ≥90% specificity were established for 7 DCT scoring methods across impairment severity subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Performance on 5 of 7 DCT scoring methods significantly differed based on impairment severity. Overall, more severely impaired participants had significantly higher E-Scores and longer completion times but demonstrated comparable errors to their less impaired counterparts. Contrary to the previously established E-Score cutoff of ≥17, a cutoff of ≥22 was required to maintain adequate specificity in our total sample, with significantly higher adjustments required in the Mild and Major Neurocognitive Disorder subgroups (≥27 and ≥40, respectively). A cutoff of >3 errors achieved adequate specificity in our sample, suggesting that error scores may produce lower false positive rates than E-Scores and completion time scores, both of which overemphasize speed and could inadvertently penalize more severely impaired individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a dementia clinic setting, error scores on the DCT may have greater utility in detecting non-credible performance than E-Scores and completion time scores, particularly among more severely impaired individuals. Future research should establish and cross-validate the sensitivity and specificity of the DCT for assessing performance validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"719-729"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance validity of the Dot Counting Test in a dementia clinic setting.\",\"authors\":\"Sanam Monjazeb, Timothy A Crowell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2023.2207125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the utility of a performance validity test (PVT), the Dot Counting Test (DCT), in individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluations for dementia. We investigated specificity rates of the DCT Effort Index score (E-Score) and various individual DCT scores (based on completion time/errors) to further establish appropriate cutoff scores.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional study included 56 non-litigating, validly performing older adults with no/minimal, mild, or major cognitive impairment. Cutoffs associated with ≥90% specificity were established for 7 DCT scoring methods across impairment severity subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Performance on 5 of 7 DCT scoring methods significantly differed based on impairment severity. Overall, more severely impaired participants had significantly higher E-Scores and longer completion times but demonstrated comparable errors to their less impaired counterparts. Contrary to the previously established E-Score cutoff of ≥17, a cutoff of ≥22 was required to maintain adequate specificity in our total sample, with significantly higher adjustments required in the Mild and Major Neurocognitive Disorder subgroups (≥27 and ≥40, respectively). A cutoff of >3 errors achieved adequate specificity in our sample, suggesting that error scores may produce lower false positive rates than E-Scores and completion time scores, both of which overemphasize speed and could inadvertently penalize more severely impaired individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a dementia clinic setting, error scores on the DCT may have greater utility in detecting non-credible performance than E-Scores and completion time scores, particularly among more severely impaired individuals. Future research should establish and cross-validate the sensitivity and specificity of the DCT for assessing performance validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"719-729\"},\"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/10.1080/23279095.2023.2207125\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/29 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/10.1080/23279095.2023.2207125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究考察了一种效度测试(PVT),即点计数测试(DCT)在接受痴呆神经心理学评估的个体中的效用。我们调查了DCT努力指数评分(E-Score)和各种个体DCT评分(基于完成时间/错误)的特异性比率,以进一步建立适当的截止分数。方法:这项横断面研究包括56名无/轻度、轻度或重度认知障碍的非诉讼、有效治疗的老年人。7种DCT评分方法在损伤严重程度亚组中建立了特异性≥90%的截止点。结果:7种DCT评分方法中有5种的表现因损伤严重程度而有显著差异。总体而言,受损更严重的参与者的e - score明显更高,完成任务的时间更长,但与受损较轻的参与者相比,他们的错误也相当。与先前建立的E-Score临界值≥17相反,在我们的总样本中,需要≥22的临界值才能保持足够的特异性,在轻度和重度神经认知障碍亚组中需要明显更高的调整(分别≥27和≥40)。在我们的样本中,>3个错误的截止值获得了足够的特异性,这表明错误评分可能比E-Scores和完成时间评分产生更低的假阳性率,这两种评分都过于强调速度,可能会无意中惩罚更严重受损的个体。结论:在痴呆症临床环境中,DCT上的错误分数可能比e - score和完成时间分数在检测不可信表现方面更有用,特别是在受损更严重的个体中。未来的研究应该建立并交叉验证DCT的敏感性和特异性,以评估绩效效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance validity of the Dot Counting Test in a dementia clinic setting.

Objective: This study examined the utility of a performance validity test (PVT), the Dot Counting Test (DCT), in individuals undergoing neuropsychological evaluations for dementia. We investigated specificity rates of the DCT Effort Index score (E-Score) and various individual DCT scores (based on completion time/errors) to further establish appropriate cutoff scores.

Method: This cross-sectional study included 56 non-litigating, validly performing older adults with no/minimal, mild, or major cognitive impairment. Cutoffs associated with ≥90% specificity were established for 7 DCT scoring methods across impairment severity subgroups.

Results: Performance on 5 of 7 DCT scoring methods significantly differed based on impairment severity. Overall, more severely impaired participants had significantly higher E-Scores and longer completion times but demonstrated comparable errors to their less impaired counterparts. Contrary to the previously established E-Score cutoff of ≥17, a cutoff of ≥22 was required to maintain adequate specificity in our total sample, with significantly higher adjustments required in the Mild and Major Neurocognitive Disorder subgroups (≥27 and ≥40, respectively). A cutoff of >3 errors achieved adequate specificity in our sample, suggesting that error scores may produce lower false positive rates than E-Scores and completion time scores, both of which overemphasize speed and could inadvertently penalize more severely impaired individuals.

Conclusions: In a dementia clinic setting, error scores on the DCT may have greater utility in detecting non-credible performance than E-Scores and completion time scores, particularly among more severely impaired individuals. Future research should establish and cross-validate the sensitivity and specificity of the DCT for assessing performance validity.

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