Cargando…

Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies

OBJECTIVE: This article investigates the accuracy of individual and combined indicators based on different strategies for detecting noncredible performance as part of a new test for the continuous assessment of short-term memory. METHOD: In two independent studies, we assessed three groups of simula...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crişan, Iulia, Sava, Florin Alin, Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu Paul, Ciumăgeanu, Mugur Daniel, Axinia, Otilia, Gîrniceanu, Lucian, Ciotlăuş, Laura
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9597147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34423686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10731911211040105
_version_ 1784816029418913792
author Crişan, Iulia
Sava, Florin Alin
Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu Paul
Ciumăgeanu, Mugur Daniel
Axinia, Otilia
Gîrniceanu, Lucian
Ciotlăuş, Laura
author_facet Crişan, Iulia
Sava, Florin Alin
Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu Paul
Ciumăgeanu, Mugur Daniel
Axinia, Otilia
Gîrniceanu, Lucian
Ciotlăuş, Laura
author_sort Crişan, Iulia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This article investigates the accuracy of individual and combined indicators based on different strategies for detecting noncredible performance as part of a new test for the continuous assessment of short-term memory. METHOD: In two independent studies, we assessed three groups of simulators, cognitively impaired patients, and nonimpaired community members with four tasks separated by a distractor. RESULTS: Pairwise comparisons between receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed significant differences between two clusters of indicators: mean recognition, inconsistent responses in recognition, and false positives (area under the ROC curves > .800) proved more accurate than delayed recall and false negatives (area under the ROC curves < .800) in discriminating simulators from patients. Likewise, both studies revealed that adding the false positives indicator based on cued recall to mean recognition incrementally improved classification accuracy (including sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value ) compared with the recognition indicator alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the association of two distinct indicators for the assessment of noncredible performance, of which one should be a forced-choice indicator.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9597147
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95971472022-10-27 Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies Crişan, Iulia Sava, Florin Alin Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu Paul Ciumăgeanu, Mugur Daniel Axinia, Otilia Gîrniceanu, Lucian Ciotlăuş, Laura Assessment Articles OBJECTIVE: This article investigates the accuracy of individual and combined indicators based on different strategies for detecting noncredible performance as part of a new test for the continuous assessment of short-term memory. METHOD: In two independent studies, we assessed three groups of simulators, cognitively impaired patients, and nonimpaired community members with four tasks separated by a distractor. RESULTS: Pairwise comparisons between receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed significant differences between two clusters of indicators: mean recognition, inconsistent responses in recognition, and false positives (area under the ROC curves > .800) proved more accurate than delayed recall and false negatives (area under the ROC curves < .800) in discriminating simulators from patients. Likewise, both studies revealed that adding the false positives indicator based on cued recall to mean recognition incrementally improved classification accuracy (including sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value ) compared with the recognition indicator alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the association of two distinct indicators for the assessment of noncredible performance, of which one should be a forced-choice indicator. SAGE Publications 2021-08-22 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9597147/ /pubmed/34423686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10731911211040105 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Articles
Crişan, Iulia
Sava, Florin Alin
Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu Paul
Ciumăgeanu, Mugur Daniel
Axinia, Otilia
Gîrniceanu, Lucian
Ciotlăuş, Laura
Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title_full Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title_fullStr Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title_short Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies
title_sort evaluation of various detection strategies in the assessment of noncredible memory performance: results of two experimental studies
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9597147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34423686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10731911211040105
work_keys_str_mv AT crisaniulia evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT savaflorinalin evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT maricutoiulaurentiupaul evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT ciumageanumugurdaniel evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT axiniaotilia evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT girniceanulucian evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies
AT ciotlauslaura evaluationofvariousdetectionstrategiesintheassessmentofnoncrediblememoryperformanceresultsoftwoexperimentalstudies