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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |