Review2016

CVLT-II Forced Choice Recognition Trial as an Embedded Validity Indicator: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Eben S. Schwartz · László A. Erdődi · Nicholas Rodriguez · Jyotsna J. Ghosh · Joshua R. Curtain · Laura A. Flashman +1 more

96 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society

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

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) trial of the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd edition, was designed as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of classification accuracy against reference PVTs. METHODS: Results from peer-reviewed studies with FCR data published since 2002 encompassing a variety of clinical, research, and forensic samples were summarized, including 37 studies with FCR failure rates (N=7575) and 17 with concordance rates with established PVTs (N=4432). RESULTS: All healthy controls scored >14 on FCR. On average, 16.9% of the entire sample scored ≤14, while 25.9% failed reference PVTs. Presence or absence of external incentives to appear impaired (as identified by researchers) resulted in different failure rates (13.6% vs. 3.5%), as did failing or passing reference PVTs (49.0% vs. 6.4%). FCR ≤14 produced an overall classification accuracy of 72%, demonstrating higher specificity (.93) than sensitivity (.50) to invalid performance. Failure rates increased with the severity of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of serious neurocognitive disorder, FCR ≤14 is highly specific, but only moderately sensitive to invalid responding. Passing FCR does not rule out a non-credible presentation, but failing FCR rules it in with high accuracy. The heterogeneity in sample characteristics and reference PVTs, as well as the quality of the criterion measure across studies, is a major limitation of this review and the basic methodology of PVT research in general. (JINS, 2016, 22, 851-858).

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 — 96 citations exist upstream.

References

2009American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering 2000California verbal learning test-second edition 1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.2012Symptom Validity Testing, Effort, and Neuropsychological Assessment 2014Embedded Measures of Performance Validity Using Verbal Fluency Tests in a Clinical Sample 2006Detection of inadequate effort on the California Verbal Learning Test-Second edition: Forced choice recognition and critical item analysis

Cited by

2020Strength in Numbers or Quality over Quantity? Examining the Importance of Criterion Measure Selection to Define Validity Groups in Performance Validity Test (PVT) Research 2019The Importance of Demographically Adjusted Cutoffs: Age and Education Bias in Raw Score Cutoffs Within the Trail Making Test 2020Examining independent and combined accuracy of embedded performance validity tests in the California Verbal Learning Test-II and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised for detecting invalid performance 2018The D-KEFS Trails as performance validity tests.

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.