Are Embedded Validity Indices Equivalent to Free-Standing Symptom Validity Tests?

Andrea S. Miele · Jessica H. Gunner · Julie K. Lynch

97 citations0/0 files storedArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Psychological Testing and Assessment Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

Symptom validity assessment is an important part of neuropsychological evaluation. There are currently several free-standing symptom validity tests (SVTs), as well as a number of empirically derived embedded validity indices, that have been developed to assess that an examinee is putting forth an optimal level of effort during testing. The use of embedded validity indices is attractive since they do not increase overall testing time and may also be less vulnerable to coaching. In addition, there are some instances where embedded validity indices are the only tool available to the neuropsychological practitioner for assessing an examinee's level of effort. As with free-standing measures, the sensitivity and specificity of embedded validity indices to suboptimal effort varies. The present study evaluated the diagnostic validity of 17 embedded validity indices by comparing performance on these indices to performance on combinations of free-standing SVTs. Results from the current medico-legal sample revealed that of the embedded validity indices, Reliable Digit Span had the best classification accuracy; however, the findings do not support the use of this embedded validity index in the absence of free-standing SVTs.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Base Rates of Malingering and Symptom Exeggeration 2009American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering 2005Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessityNAN Policy & Planning Committee 1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1978Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing.2007American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) Practice Guidelines for Neuropsychological Assessment and Consultation 2007A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort

Cited by

2016Performance validity in undergraduate research participants: a comparison of failure rates across tests and cutoffs 2023Cross-validation of the Trail Making Test as a non-memory-based embedded performance validity test among veterans with and without cognitive impairment 2023Validation and psychometric properties of the Word Choice Test-10 as an abbreviated performance validity test 2024Validity of the Groningen Effort Test in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.