Logical memory, visual reproduction, and verbal paired associates are effective embedded validity indicators in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Saved in:
| Title: | Logical memory, visual reproduction, and verbal paired associates are effective embedded validity indicators in patients with traumatic brain injury. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Tyson, Brad T. (AUTHOR), Pyne, Sadie R. (AUTHOR), Crisan, Iulia (AUTHOR), Calamia, Matthew (AUTHOR), Holcomb, Matthew (AUTHOR), Giromini, Luciano (AUTHOR), Erdodi, Laszlo A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. Mar/Apr2025, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p450-459. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Recollection (Psychology), Brain injuries, Test validity, Memory, Adults |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Neuropsychology: Adult is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 23279095 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/23279095.2023.2179400 |
