They are not destined to fail: a systematic examination of scores on embedded performance validity indicators in patients with intellectual disability

Isabelle Messa · Matthew Holcomb · Jonathan D. Lichtenstein · Brad T. Tyson · Robert M. Roth · László A. Erdődi

37 citations0/0 files storedAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences

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

This study was designed to determine the clinical utility of embedded performance validity indicators (EVIs) in adults with intellectual disability (ID) during neuropsychological assessment. Based on previous research, unacceptably high (>16%) base rates of failure (BRFail) were predicted on EVIs using on the method of threshold, but not on EVIs based on alternative detection methods. A comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests was administered to 23 adults with ID (MAge = 37.7 years, MFSIQ = 64.9). BRFail were computed at two levels of cut-offs for 32 EVIs. Patients produced very high BRFail on 22 EVIs (18.2%-100%), indicating unacceptable levels of false positive errors. However, on the remaining ten EVIs BRFail was <16%. Moreover, six of the EVIs had a zero BRFail, indicating perfect specificity. Consistent with previous research, individuals with ID failed the majority of EVIs at high BRFail. However, they produced BRFail similar to cognitively higher functioning patients on select EVIs based on recognition memory and unusual patterns of performance, suggesting that the high BRFail reported in the literature may reflect instrumentation artefacts. The implications of these findings for clinical and forensic assessment are discussed.

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 — 37 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 2011Neuropsychological Assessment 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 1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.2003Detection of Malingering Using Atypical Performance Patterns on Standard Neuropsychological Tests 2007Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective.1978Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing.

Cited by

2022Take Their Word for It: The Inventory of Problems Provides Valuable Information on Both Symptom and Performance Validity 2022Multivariate models provide an effective psychometric solution to the variability in classification accuracy of D-KEFS Stroop performance validity cutoffs 2023Cutoff Elasticity in Multivariate Models of Performance Validity Assessment as a Function of the Number of Components and Aggregation Method 2023Replicating a Meta-Analysis: The Search for the Optimal Word Choice Test Cutoff Continues

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.