The Utility of an Attention-Based Performance Validity Test in a Sample of Austrian Early Retirement Claimants

Janina Teßmann · Anselm B. M. Fuermaier · Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald · Johann P. Lehrner

8 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Injury and Law

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

Abstract Most performance validity tests (PVTs) are memory-based which might lead to an underestimation of performance validity issues in other cognitive domains. Accordingly, the Groningen Effort Test (GET) was developed as an attention-based PVT to detect noncredible attentional performance. This study aimed to examine the utility of the GET performance validity measures—the GET index score (GET I ) and the number of errors (GET E )—in a civil forensic setting. Archival data were drawn from neuropsychological assessments of 132 individuals seeking early retirement in Austria. Performance on the Word Memory Test (WMT) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS) served as an external performance validity criterion. Additionally, correlations between all PVTs and two cognitive ability tests (i.e., the Cognitrone and Test of Attentional Performance) were calculated. GET performance was substantially better for individuals exhibiting valid performance than for individuals exhibiting invalid performance, with moderate (GET I d = 0.73) and large (GET E d = 2.20) effect sizes. The GET I showed sensitivity of 71.0% and specificity of 81.8%. The GET E showed sensitivity of 77.4% and specificity of 89.1%. Correlations between the PVTs and the cognitive ability tests were in the small-to-medium range among participants with valid performance. The GET proved valuable in assessing performance validity in early retirement claimants. Of the two GET measures, the GET E was slightly superior to the GET I and should be preferred for clinical use. While the findings indicate that the GET is relatively easy to pass for most individuals, further investigation into its cognitive demands is desirable.

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 — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2009American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering 1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1986Development, genetics, and psychology 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 2017Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Measures of agreement 2012Performance Validity and Symptom Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment 2020Multidimensional Malingering Criteria for Neuropsychological Assessment: A 20-Year Update of the Malingered Neuropsychological Dysfunction Criteria 2020American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores

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.