Cargando…

Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury

Background: To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. Review: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a ‘passing’ SVT performance whic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Bigler, Erin D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4673569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25215453
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.947627
_version_ 1782404765557194752
author Bigler, Erin D.
author_facet Bigler, Erin D.
author_sort Bigler, Erin D.
collection PubMed
description Background: To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. Review: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a ‘passing’ SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed. Conclusions: Advances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4673569
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46735692015-12-15 Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury Bigler, Erin D. Brain Inj Reviews Background: To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. Review: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a ‘passing’ SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed. Conclusions: Advances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed. Taylor & Francis 2014-12-01 2014-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4673569/ /pubmed/25215453 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.947627 Text en © 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
spellingShingle Reviews
Bigler, Erin D.
Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title_full Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title_fullStr Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title_full_unstemmed Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title_short Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
title_sort effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4673569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25215453
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.947627
work_keys_str_mv AT biglererind effortsymptomvaliditytestingperformancevaliditytestingandtraumaticbraininjury