Every second counts: A comparison of four dot counting test scoring procedures for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance.

Tasha Rhoads · Zachary J. Resch · Gabriel P. Ovsiew · Daniel J. White · Dayna A. Abramson · Jason R. Soble

22 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Assessment

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

= 132). Validity groups were established by 5 independent criterion PVTs (102 valid and 30 invalid). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses yielded significant areas under the curve (AUCs = .84-.86) for the overall sample, with sensitivities of 50%-67% at ≥ 89% specificity. The DCT scores had outstanding classification accuracy (AUCs ≥ .92; sensitivities = 80%-83%) in the unimpaired group and excellent classification accuracy in the impaired group (AUCs = .79-.81; sensitivities = 43%-60%). Whereas negligible differences emerged between the 4 scoring methods for the cognitively intact group, the DCT-4 showed notably stronger psychometric properties among the overall sample in general and the mild cognitive impairment group in particular. Results corroborate previous findings suggesting that the DCT is a robust PVT, regardless of the employed scoring procedure, and replicate support for the abbreviated DCT-4 as the recommended validity indicator. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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 — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

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 2019A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering in adults: Two decades of deception detection 2012The Efficiency and Accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, Errors on the First 10 Items of The Test of Memory Malingering, and Five Embedded Measures in Predicting Invalid Test Performance 2017Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature 2008Dementia and effort test performance 2020Base Rates of Invalid Test Performance Across Clinical Non-forensic Contexts and Settings 2017Utility of various WAIS-IV Digit Span indices for identifying noncredible performance validity among cognitively impaired and unimpaired examinees

Cited by

2022Validation of alternative dot counting test E-score cutoffs based on degree of cognitive impairment in veteran and civilian clinical samples 2022Benefits and challenges of using logistic regression to assess neuropsychological performance validity: Evidence from a simulation study 2024The Making Change Test: Initial validation of a novel digitized performance validity test for tele-neuropsychology

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.