The Clinical neuropsychologist · 2019
Detecting noncredible performance with the neuropsychological assessment battery, screening module: A simulation study.
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.
Lace John W, Grant Alex F, Ruppert Phillip, Kaufman David A S, Teague Carson L, Lowell Kimberly, Gfeller Jeffrey D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: While the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery, Screening Module (S-NAB) is a commonly used cognitive screening measure, no composite embedded performance validity test (PVT) formula has yet been described within it. This study sought to empirically derive PVT formulas within the S-NAB using an analog simulation paradigm.
METHOD: Seventy-two university students (M age = 18.92) were randomly assigned to either an Asymptomatic (AS) or simulated mild traumatic brain injury (S-mTBI) group and were administered a neuropsychological test battery that included the S-NAB and standalone and embedded PVTs. The AS group was instructed to perform optimally, and the S-mTBI group received symptom and test coaching to help simulate mTBI-related impairment. Both groups received warnings regarding the presence of PVTs throughout the test battery.
RESULTS: Groups showed significant differences (all ps < .001) on all S-NAB domain scores and PVTs. In the S-NAB, the Attention (S-ATT) and Executive Function (S-EXE) domains showed the largest effect sizes (Cohen's ds = 2.02 and 1.79, respectively). Seven raw scores from S-ATT and S-EXE subtests were entered as predictor variables in a direct logistic regression (LR). The model accurately classified 90.3% of cases. Two PVT formulas were described: (1) an exponentiated equation from LR results and (2) an arithmetic formula using four individually meaningful variables. Both formulas demonstrated outstanding discriminability between groups (AUCs = .96-.97) and yielded good classification statistics compared to other PVTs.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe composite, embedded PVT formulas within the S-NAB. Implications, limitations, and appropriate future directions of inquiry are discussed.
METHOD: Seventy-two university students (M age = 18.92) were randomly assigned to either an Asymptomatic (AS) or simulated mild traumatic brain injury (S-mTBI) group and were administered a neuropsychological test battery that included the S-NAB and standalone and embedded PVTs. The AS group was instructed to perform optimally, and the S-mTBI group received symptom and test coaching to help simulate mTBI-related impairment. Both groups received warnings regarding the presence of PVTs throughout the test battery.
RESULTS: Groups showed significant differences (all ps < .001) on all S-NAB domain scores and PVTs. In the S-NAB, the Attention (S-ATT) and Executive Function (S-EXE) domains showed the largest effect sizes (Cohen's ds = 2.02 and 1.79, respectively). Seven raw scores from S-ATT and S-EXE subtests were entered as predictor variables in a direct logistic regression (LR). The model accurately classified 90.3% of cases. Two PVT formulas were described: (1) an exponentiated equation from LR results and (2) an arithmetic formula using four individually meaningful variables. Both formulas demonstrated outstanding discriminability between groups (AUCs = .96-.97) and yielded good classification statistics compared to other PVTs.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe composite, embedded PVT formulas within the S-NAB. Implications, limitations, and appropriate future directions of inquiry are discussed.