Evaluating assessment validity is expected in neuropsychological evaluation, particularly in cases with identified secondary gain, where malingering or somatization may be present. Assessed with standalone measures and embedded indices, all within the testing portion of the examination, research on validity of self-report in the clinical interview is limited. Based on experience with litigation-involved examinees recovering from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), it was hypothesized that inconsistently reported date of injury (DOI) and/or loss of consciousness (LOC) might predict invalid performance on neurocognitive testing.
This archival study examined cases of litigation-involved mTBI patients seen at an outpatient neuropsychological practice in Philadelphia, PA. Coded data included demographic variables, performance validity measures, and consistency between self-report and medicolegal records.
A significant relationship was found between the consistency of examinees' self-report with records and their scores on performance validity testing, X(2) (1, N = 84) = 24.18, p < .01, Φ = .49. Post hoc testing revealed significant between-group differences in three of four comparisons, with medium to large effect sizes. A final post hoc analysis found significance between the number of performance validity tests (PVTs) failed and the extent to which an examinee incorrectly reported DOI r(83) = .49, p < .01. Using inconsistently reported LOC and/or DOI to predict an examinee's performance as invalid had a 75% sensitivity and a 75% specificity.
Examinees whose reported DOI or LOC differs from records may be more likely to fail one or more PVTs, suggesting possible symptom exaggeration and/or under performance on cognitive testing.s.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,554,389
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from The Clinical Neuropsychologist
#546
of 698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,463
of 270,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Clinical Neuropsychologist
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
