Applied neuropsychology. Adult · 2023
Logical memory, visual reproduction, and verbal paired associates are effective embedded validity indicators in patients with traumatic brain injury.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tyson Brad T, Pyne Sadie R, Crisan Iulia, Calamia Matthew, Holcomb Matthew, Giromini Luciano, Erdodi Laszlo A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study was design to evaluate the potential of the recognition trials for the Logical Memory (LM), Visual Reproduction (VR), and Verbal Paired Associates (VPA) subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scales-Fourth Edition (WMS-IV) to serve as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs).
METHOD: The classification accuracy of the three WMS-IV subtests was computed against three different criterion PVTs in a sample of 103 adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
RESULTS: The optimal cutoffs (LM ≤ 20, VR ≤ 3, VPA ≤ 36) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.33-.87) and specificity (.92-.98). An age-corrected scaled score of ≤5 on either of the free recall trials on the VPA was specific (.91-.92) and relatively sensitive (.48-.57) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. A VR I ≤ 5 or VR II ≤ 4 had comparable specificity, but lower sensitivity (.25-.42). There was no difference in failure rate as a function of TBI severity.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to LM, VR, and VPA can also function as embedded PVTs. Failing validity cutoffs on these subtests signals an increased risk of non-credible presentation and is robust to genuine neurocognitive impairment. However, they should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of an overall neurocognitive profile.
METHOD: The classification accuracy of the three WMS-IV subtests was computed against three different criterion PVTs in a sample of 103 adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
RESULTS: The optimal cutoffs (LM ≤ 20, VR ≤ 3, VPA ≤ 36) produced good combinations of sensitivity (.33-.87) and specificity (.92-.98). An age-corrected scaled score of ≤5 on either of the free recall trials on the VPA was specific (.91-.92) and relatively sensitive (.48-.57) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. A VR I ≤ 5 or VR II ≤ 4 had comparable specificity, but lower sensitivity (.25-.42). There was no difference in failure rate as a function of TBI severity.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to LM, VR, and VPA can also function as embedded PVTs. Failing validity cutoffs on these subtests signals an increased risk of non-credible presentation and is robust to genuine neurocognitive impairment. However, they should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of an overall neurocognitive profile.