Validation of grooved pegboard cutoffs as an additional embedded measure of performance validity

Jared S. Link · Lisa H. Lu · Patrick Armistead‐Jehle · Robert A. Seegmiller

22 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 Deception detection and forensic psychology Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

Objective Using embedded performance validity (PVT) comparisons, Erdodi et al. suggested that Grooved Pegboard (GPB) T-score cutoffs for either hand (≤ 29) or both hands (≤ 31) could be used as additional embedded PVTs. The current study evaluated the relationship between these proposed cutoff scores and established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT]; Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]).Method Participants (N = 178) were predominately Caucasian (84%) males (79%) with a mean age and education of 41 (SD = 11.7) and 15.8 years (SD = 2.3), respectively. Participants were stratified as “passing” or “failing” the GPBviaErdodi’s proposed criteria. “Failures” on the MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were based on conventional recommendations.Results Moderate correlations between GPB classification and a condition of interest (COI; i.e. at least two failures on reference PVTs) were observed for dominant (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 34.72, ϕ = .44, p < .001), non-dominant (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 16.46, ϕ = .30, p = .001), and both hand conditions (χ2 (1, n = 178) = 32.48, ϕ = .43, p < .001). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power were generally higher than Erdodi et al.’s initial findings.Conclusion These findingsprovide supportfor the clinical utility of the GPB as an additional embedded PVT. More specifically, dominant and both hand cutoffs were found to be more robust measures ofnon-genuine performance in those without motor deficits. While promising, sensitivity continues to be low; therefore, it is ill-advised to use the GPB as a sole measure of performance validity.

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

1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.2003Detection of Malingering Using Atypical Performance Patterns on Standard Neuropsychological Tests 2021American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering 2007Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective.2020Multidimensional Malingering Criteria for Neuropsychological Assessment: A 20-Year Update of the Malingered Neuropsychological Dysfunction Criteria 2008Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios 2008Frequency and bases of abnormal performance by healthy adults on neuropsychological testing

Cited by

2022Cross-Cultural Performance Validity Testing: Managing False Positives in Examinees with Limited English Proficiency 2023M is For Performance Validity: The IOP-M Provides a Cost-Effective Measure of the Credibility of Memory Deficits during Neuropsychological Evaluations 2023Grooved Pegboard adds incremental value over memory-apparent performance validity tests in predicting psychiatric symptom report

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.