A meta-analysis of the accuracy of embedded performance validity indicators from the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status

William F. Goette · Haley E. Goette

16 citations0/0 files storedThe Clinical Neuropsychologist

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 Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

Objective: Meta-analyze the embedded performance validity tests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), emphasizing two topics: diagnostic accuracy and relationships with demographics.Method: Literature was identified through a review of PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Bivariate linear mixed models were used for diagnostic accuracy analyses. Random-effects analysis of correlations with demographic variables was also used for the Effort Index.Results: Diagnostic accuracy analyses utilized 12 studies of the Effort Index (EI; N = 1469) and 6 studies of the Effort Scale (ES; N = 854). The EI was found to have a sensitivity of .44 (95% CI: .28 – .62), specificity of .87 (95% CI: .78 – .93), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 5.41 (95% CI: 3.74 – 7.58). The ES produced a sensitivity of .67 (95% CI: .50 – .81), specificity of .72 (95% CI: .53 – .85), and DOR of 5.97 (95% CI: 1.70 – 15.30). Meta-analysis of correlations utilized 14 samples of the EI (N = 3781), but insufficient data were available for the ES. Correlations between the EI and age (r = .10, 95% CI: .05 – .16), education (r = −.11, 95% CI: −.18 to −.04), and the RBANS Total Scale (r = −.45, 95% CI: −.62 to −.24) were significant. These results appeared to be robust to publication bias.Conclusion: Results support use of the EI over the ES; however, the latter is comparatively less studied and did not have similar variability in reported cut-off scores. ES accuracy statistics were significantly predicted by sample variables, which may be related to its relatively fewer studies. Both measures should be used cautiously in the context of genuine cognitive impairment.

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 — 16 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews 2001A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations 2005THE FILE-DRAWER PROBLEM REVISITED: A GENERAL WEIGHTED METHOD FOR CALCULATING FAIL-SAFE NUMBERS IN META-ANALYSIS 2015Meta-Analysis with R 2008Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy 1999Diagnostic Criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction: Proposed Standards for Clinical Practice and Research 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

Cited by

2020Reconsidering the RBANS Factor Structure: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analytic Factor Analysis 2021Strategies to detect invalid performance in cognitive testing: An updated and extended meta-analysis 2022Preliminary findings from reevaluating the MMPI Response Bias Scale items in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation 2020RBANS Validity Measures and the TOMM in Veterans Undergoing Seizure Monitoring

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.