Assessment of response bias in neurocognitive evaluations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In clinical neuropsychological practice, assessment of response validity (e.g., effort, over-reporting, under-reporting) is an essential component of the assessment process. By contrast, other health care professionals, including those in neurorehabilitation settings, often omit assessment of this topic from their evaluations or only rely on subjective impressions. OBJECTIVE: To provide the first comprehensive review of response validity assessment in the neurorehabilitation literature, including why the topic is often avoided, what methods are commonly used, and how to decrease false positives. METHODS: A literature review and documentation of personal experience and perspectives was used to review this topic. RESULTS: There is a well-established literature on the necessity and utility of assessing response validity, particularly in patients who have external incentives to embellish their presentation or to under-report symptoms. There are many reasons why non-neuropsychologists typically avoid assessment of this topic. This poses a significant problem, particularly when patients exaggerate or malinger, because it can lead to misdiagnosis and it risks increasing the cost of healthcare by performing unnecessary tests and treatments, unfair distribution of disability/compensation resources, and a reduced access to these and other health resources by patients who genuinely need them. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant need for non-neuropsychologists to develop and incorporate symptom and performance validity assessments in clinical evaluations, including those in neurorehabilitation settings.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

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