Cutoff Scores for MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Cognitive-Somatic Validity Scales for Psychometrically Defined Malingering Groups in a Military Sample
|
|
- Jade Patterson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016) Cutoff Scores for MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Cognitive-Somatic Validity Scales for Psychometrically Defined Malingering Groups in a Military Sample Abstract Alvin Jones* Womack Army Medical Center, NC, USA *Corresponding author at: Department of Behavioral Health, Womack Army Medical Center, 2817 Riley Road, Bldg , Ft Bragg, NC Tel.: address: alrobj@googl .com (A. Jones). Accepted 2 May 2016 Objective: This research examined cutoff scores for MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales specifically developed to assess non-credible reporting of cognitive and/or somatic symptoms. The validity scales examined included the Response Bias Scale (RBS), the Symptom Validity Scales (FBS, FBS-r), Infrequent Somatic Responses scale (Fs), and the Henry Heilbronner Indexes (HHI, HHI-r). Method: Cutoffs were developed by comparing a psychometrically defined non-malingering group with three psychometrically defined malingering groups (probable, probable to definite, and definite malingering) and a group that combined all malingering groups. The participants in this research were drawn from a military sample consisting largely of patients with traumatic brain injury (mostly mild traumatic brain injury). Results: Specificities for cutoffs of at least 0.90 are provided. Sensitivities, predictive values, and likelihood ratios are also provided. Conclusions: RBS had the largest mean effect size (d) when the malingering groups were compared to the non-malingering group (d range = ). Keywords: MMPI-2; MMPI-2-R; Malingering; Military; Symptom validity Introduction There is a body of evidence (Nelson, Sweet, & Heilbronner, 2007; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2008; Whitney, Davis, Shepard, & Herman 2008; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, Green, & Sellbom, 2010; Nelson, Hoelzle, Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, 2010; Jones & Ingram, 2011; Youngjohn, Wershba, Stevenson, Sturgeon, & Thomas, 2011; Peck et al., 2013) that demonstrates Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) specifically designed to assess the validity or credibility of self-reported cognitive and/or somatic symptoms perform better in a variety of clinical and forensic settings than the validity scales that assess overreporting of emotional distress or psychopathology on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom. Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and the related but restructured set of scales on the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). Results of a principal component analysis in a military sample by Jones and Ingram (2011) also indicate that the Cognitive-Somatic Validity Scales and validity scales related to psychopathology load on distinctly different components. Because of the differences in content and apparent superiority of the cognitive-somatic scales in the context of neuropsychological evaluations, additional research is indicated with application in a military sample. Cutoff scores have clinical utility and have been established in a variety of settings for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Cognitive-Somatic SVTs (C-S SVTs), but no research has specifically addressed cutoffs to predict malingering for these scales in a military sample. The purpose of this This research was approved through the Institutional Review Board at Womack Army Medical Center. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Published by Oxford University Press This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. doi: /arclin/acw035 Advance Access publication on 12 July 2016
2 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); research is to examine cutoffs that may be useful for diagnosing psychometrically determined malingering at three levels (Probable [PM], Probable to Definite [PDM], and Definite [DM]) and a group that combines all malingering groups (CM). The scales that assess non-credible reporting of psychopathology or emotional distress include the MMPI-2 Infrequency (F), Back F (F B ) scale, and the Infrequency Psychopathology (F P ) scale and the corresponding MMPI-2-RF scales (F-r and F P -r). The C-S SVTs on the MMPI-2 include the Fake Bad Scale (FBS; Lees-Haley, English, & Glenn, 1991), now named the Symptom Validity Scale, and the Response Bias Scale (RBS; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007). The MMPI- 2-RF revised version of the MMPI-2 FBS (FBS-r) retains 30 of the original 43 FBS items. RBS remains intact on the MMPI- 2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF also includes a scale specifically designed to assess over-reporting of somatic complaints, the Infrequent Somatic Responses scale (Fs). Another C-S SVT, the Henry Heilbronner Index (HHI; Henry, Heilbronner, Mittenberg, & Enders, 2006) was developed for the MMPI-2, and a revised but shorter version, the HHI-r (11 vs. 15 items), was recently developed for the MMPI-2-RF (Henry, Heilbronner, Algina, & Kaya, 2013). Neither the HHI nor the HHI-r have been adopted by the publisher of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF. Jones and Ingram (2011) demonstrated that in a military sample FBS, RBS, and FBS-r, and HHI performed better than the MMPI-2 F-family of scales assessing psychopathology in predicting performance credibility on neurocognitive tests. Because HHI performed the best in many respects in this sample, it is included in the current research. FBS was the first CS-SVT adopted by the publisher of the MMPI-2. The items on this scale were selected rationally on a content basis using unpublished frequency counts of malingerers MMPI test responses and observations of personal injury malingerers (Lees-Haley, English, & Glenn, 1991; p. 204). Items were selected that were thought to assess simultaneously exaggerated post-injury distress and under-reporting of pre-incident personality problems. A meta-analysis of FBS was completed in 2006 (Nelson, Sweet, & Demakis, 2006), and it was updated in 2010 (Nelson, Hoelzle, Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, 2010). The authors of this meta-analysis concluded that FBS differentiated groups as well as, and was at times superior, to other MMPI-2 validity scales, including all of F-family scales that assess psychopathology. This included TBI patients. A review of cutoff scores for FBS in multiple settings and groups (TBI, nontraumatic brain disease, psychiatric patients, and other groups) by Greiffenstein, Fox, and Lees-Haley (2007) concluded that a cutoff of 23 (specificity = 0.90) justifies concern about the validity of self-reported symptoms. A specificity of 0.90 has been considered a minimally acceptable level to establish cutoff scores (Victor, Boone, Serpa, Buehler, & Ziegler, 2009; Larrabee, 2012a) and is used throughout the current research to examine cutoff scores. Greiffenstein and coworkers indicated that one should be mindful of moderating variables, such as head injury severity, when using FBS cutoff scores; however, they indicate that in cases of head injury with negative radiologic findings, as is the case in the sample used for the current research, then cutoff scores of are grounds for suspecting exaggeration. A cutoff of 23 for men and 26 for women suggests possible malingering for the MMPI-2 (Ben-Porath, Graham, & Tellegen, 2009), which corresponds to a T-score of 80 for both cutoffs. Greiffenstein and coworkers found that a raw score of 30 or greater never or rarely produced false-positive errors, which corresponds to an MMPI-2 T-score of about 100 for men and 90 for women. Research subsequent to that of Greiffenstein, Fox, and Lees-Haley (2007) found that slightly higher cutoffs might be needed to meet recommended minimal levels of specificity. However, this research may not have used well-differentiated groups with respect to possible malingering status, and FBS may not be as sensitive or specific to a diagnosis of malingering in this case. For example, Tsushima, Geling, and Fabrigas (2011) compared a sample of predominantly mtbi litigating and/or compensation-seeking patients and non-litigating patients primarily with emotional or behavioral problems, health conditions, or both that were suspected to be influenced by psychological factors. No validity tests were used to classify patients into either group. Tsushima and coworkers found an FBS cutoff of 25 produced a specificity of Dionysus, Denney, and Halfaker (2011) also found a cutoff of 25 was necessary to obtain a specificity of at least 0.90 in sample of litigating or disabilityseeking head-injured patients who failed at least one performance validity test (PVT) and a group of head-injured litigating patients who failed no PVTs. PVTs are designed to assess the credibility of performance on neurocognitive tests and not selfreported symptoms as do SVTs (Larrabee, 2012a). The possibility of exaggeration still exists in the latter group in the research by Dionysus and coworkers given that they were litigating. Peck et al. (2013) examined three groups, including a valid TBI group, a psychogenic non-epileptic seizure group, and an invalid TBI group, which were classed as PM based on Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria. They found an FBS cutoff 27 produced a false-positive classification rate of 7% with 1 failure on PVTs in their valid TBI group. However, not only did some in this presumed valid group fail a PVT, the authors indicate that participants in the presumed valid group had substantial external incentives. Thus, the cutoff established in this research might have been somewhat high because there were possible malingerers in this presumed valid group. Research (Fox, 2011) suggests that failure on even a single PVT can invalidate expected brain behavior relationships that underlie neurocognitive tests interpretations, and research by Proto et al. (2014) concluded that failure on even one PVT should raise concerns about performance validity, especially in individuals with mtbi. Thus, failure on one PVT test failure may raise questions about possible malingering or at least non-credible performance on neuropsychological tests for other reasons, such as a Somatic Symptom Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) perhaps in the form of a Cogniform Disorder (Delis & Wetter, 2007).
3 788 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); The revision of FBS on the MMPI-2-RF (FBS-r) correlates in the upper 90s with scores on the MMPI-2 version of the scale in samples that included large numbers of individuals who failed SVTs (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). Jones and Ingram (2011) found a correlation of 0.95 between FBS and FBS-r in a military sample. With respect to cutoffs, Ben-Porath and Tellegen (2011) indicate that a T-score of (raw score range 17 23) suggests possible over-reporting of memory complaints, and a T-score 100 (raw score = 24) suggests likely over-reporting of memory complaints and limits the interpretability of the MMPI-2-RF Cognitive Complaints scale (COG). Tarescavage, Wygant, Gervais, and Ben-Porath (2013) found the same T-score ( 100) of was necessary to differentiate an incentive only vs. a probable to definite Malingered Neurocognitive Disorder (MND) group based on Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria in a non head-injured sample. This is slightly higher than the cutoff of 21 that Schroeder et al. (2012) found in differentiating a litigating group that failed Slick and coworkers criteria from a group of mostly mtbi patients who passed these criteria. RBS was initially developed by Gervais (2005) but later modified. The items for both the original and modified versions are on both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF. RBS was developed using an empirical keying methodology to detect symptom complaints associated with cognitive response bias and over-reporting in forensic neuropsychological and disability assessment settings. Regression analysis was used to identify MMPI-2 items that predicted failure on PVTs. RBS consists of 28 MMPI-2 items that discriminated between non head-injured disability claimants who passed or failed tests designed to detect effort on cognitive tests (Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007). The initial validation research for the revised RBS (Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007) involved mostly non head-injured disability claimants. This research suggested that RBS was more accurate in detecting inadequate effort on tests of cognitive functioning than the MMPI-2 F-family scales that assess psychopathology in this type of forensic disability assessment setting. This initial research also found a cutoffs of 16 and 17 produced specificities of 0.89 and 0.95 in classifying failure on the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT; Green, 2004), Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), or both. Three studies have examined cutoffs using criteria developed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999). Peck et al. (2013) found cutoff of 16 was adequate in their valid TBI group, which is the same as the cutoff that Schroeder et al. (2012) found comparing their TBI patients who met or failed Slick and coworkers criteria. Tarescavage, Wygant, Gervais, and Ben-Porath (2013) found a T-score of 100 (raw score 17) comparing their sample of non head-injured incentive only and PM/DM group. In samples using military veterans, similar or just slightly higher cutoffs have been found. Whitney, Davis, Shepard, and Herman (2008) found a cutoff of 17 was adequate (specificity = 0.92) in predicting failure on the TOMM in a mixed (TBI, neurologic disorders, psychiatric disorders) Veterans Administration clinical sample. Whitney (2013) using a larger sample from her practice found a similar cutoff of 18 predicted failure on the TOMM and MSVT at specificities of 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. Young, Kearns, and Roper (2011) found cutoff of 19 was needed to obtain acceptable specificity (0.91) in distinguishing pass fail status on the WMT in sample of military veterans in recent, current, or upcoming compensation evaluations. Other research using non-military samples has found slightly lower cutoff scores. Wygant et al. (2010) found a cutoff of 15 (T = 90; specificity = 0.91) was adequate in classifying disability claimants who failed either the WMT or TOMM vs. a group of claimants who passed both PVTs. Dionysus, Denney, and Halfaker (2011) found that similar RBS cutoffs of 14 or 15 both produced a specificity of 0.93, but the 14 cutoff had better sensitivity. Using criterion groups based on litigation status (not validity tests), Tsushima Geling and Fabrigas (2011) found a cutoff of 13 was necessary to obtain a specificity of at least The results of their receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve analysis indicated that RBS outperformed F, F P, FBS, and HHI in identifying the litigating patients. The MMPI-2-RF technical manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008) indicates that F S consists of 16 items that were endorsed by 25% or less of women and men in several large samples of medical patients and a chronic pain patient sample. The total sample included over 55,000 patients. It is described as a scale that assesses over-reporting of somatic symptoms (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). However, it has been shown to be as sensitive to memory complaints as FBS-r (Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, Green, & Sellbom, 2010). The technical manual suggests that T-scores in the range of (raw score range 5 7) indicate possible over-reporting of somatic problems, and scores 100 (raw score 8) indicates over-reporting of somatic problems and possible invalidity of scores on the MMPI-2-RF Somatic Scales. Tarescavage, Wygant, Gervais, and Ben-Porath (2013) found T-score of 100 (raw score 8) had acceptable specificity when comparing their incentive only and PM/DM group. Schroeder et al. (2012) found a slightly lower raw score of 6 was sufficient to differentiate their TBI patients. HHI is a subset of items empirically derived from FBS and the pseudoneurologic scale (PNS) developed by Shaw and Matthews (1965). The items on the HHI were derived by comparing personal injury litigants and disability claimants (79% with mtbi; 5% with moderate-to severe TBI) who met Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for PM with non-litigating mtbi (85%) and moderate-to-severe (15%) head-injured controls (Henry, Heilbronner, Mittenberg, & Enders, 2006). As a result of their research comparing the FBS, PNS, and HHI, Henry and coworkers, concluded that HHI, which they termed a pseudosomatic factor, was a purer measure of somatic malingering than the FBS and PNS. They found that a cutoff of
4 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); had an acceptable classification accuracy of 0.86 with a specificity of A cutoff of 9 produced a specificity of 0.95, and a score 13 was associated with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%. Subsequent HHI research suggests that higher cutoffs may be needed to obtain acceptable specificity. Dionysus, Denney, and Halfaker (2011) also using Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria and a sample of head-injured patients found a cutoff of 12 (specificity = 0.93) was needed to differentiate a group of probable to definite malingerers and a group of head-injured patients who passed validity tests and did not meet Slick and coworkers criteria for malingering. Other research using less stringent criteria to form groups has found similar or slightly higher cutoffs. Tsushima Geling and Fabrigas (2011) found a cutoff of 11 was needed to differentiate litigating from clinical patients to obtain a specificity of Young, Kerns, and Roper (2011) found a cutoff of found a cutoff of 14 was necessary to differentiate a group of compensation-seeking vs. non compensation-seeking military veterans at a specificity of They found a nonsignificant relationship between HHI and the WMT and did not calculate cutoff scores for HHI. The relatively higher cutoff in differentiating the compensation-seeking and non compensation-seeking patients may be because more participants in the non compensation-seeking group (53.4%) failed the WMT than did participants in the compensation-seeking group (46.5%; Heilbronner & Henry, 2013). In addition, almost all individuals in a Veterans Administration sample, as in an active duty military sample, have potential incentive to malinger. Thus, the rate of failure on the WMT in both groups and well as potential incentive to malinger could have, as Heilbronner and Henry point out, artificially inflated HHI cutoffs in order to obtain acceptable specificity. However, Whitney (2013) found that the same cutoff of 14 was necessary to obtain specificities of 0.95 and 0.96 to differentiate those passing or failing the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) and MSVT(Green, 2004). Earlier research by Whitney, Davis, Shepard, and Herman (2008) using a smaller sample in the same setting found a similar cutoff of 13 was needed to differentiate those who passed for failed the TOMM (specificity = 0.92). Henry, Heilbronner, Algina, & Kaya (2013) found that a cutoff of 7 for HHI-r produced a sensitivity of 0.69 and a specificity of 0.93 in differentiating personal jury and disability litigants vs. nonlitigating head-injured patients. This initial research suggests the HHI-r may have some promise. Materials and Methods Participants The sample used in this research is the same as used by Jones (2013a, 2013b), and the methodology in the current research parallels that used in the previous research. All participants were active duty military members who were consecutive referrals to the author and evaluated in the brain injury medicine or neuropsychology services at two army medical centers. The participants completed a neuropsychological evaluation that included the MMPI-2 and at least one PVT. Participants with TRIN or VRIN 80 were excluded. A cannot say scale (CNS) > 18 was also used as an exclusion criterion; however, no one had a CNS score >17. The initial sample consisted of 495 participants; after exclusion criteria for the MMPI-2 were applied, the final sample consisted of 462 participants. After the non-malingering (NM) and three malingering groups (PM, PDM, and DM) were formed (groups are described in the following), the final sample consisted of 300 participants. There were 145 participants in the NM group and 155 in the three malingering groups. The sample was 82.7% men; the mean age was 31.6 years (SD = 9.0), and the mean education level was 13.1 years (SD = 2.0). The ethnic distribution was 72.6% Caucasian, 16.7% Afro-American, 10.3% Hispanic, and 0.4% was Asian or other. There were no significant differences in age or education or in the distribution of gender or ethnicity across the comparison groups. The majority of the participants were evaluated for closed head injuries, blast exposure, and heat injuries, or some combination of these injuries. Because of the retrospective nature of the data, the exact distribution of the severity and nature of head injury was not available for the final sample. However, data were available for about two-thirds of the initial sample but unfortunately not linked to individual participants. About 90% of the sample experienced closed head, blast, or heat injuries or some combination of the three. Approximately 75% of these injuries were estimated to be mild, 19% were moderate, and 6% were severe. About 10% of the sample was evaluated for brain disease (e.g., multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Huntington s disease, etc.). Criteria used to judge the severity of TBI were based in large part on the Department of Veterans Affairs/ Department of Defense 40 consensus-based classification of closed TBI severity (Department of Veteran Affairs, 2009). However, information for each criterion was not always available (e.g., Glasgow Coma Scale ratings and brain-imaging studies at time of injury), so the severity ratings were primarily based on criteria related to length of loss of consciousness, length of alteration of consciousness (e.g., feeling dazed, disoriented, confused, or difficulty mentally tracking events), and length of post-traumatic amnesia.
5 790 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); PVT Cutoff Scores Five PVTs were used for this research to establish comparison groups. The PVTs included two embedded and three freestanding tests. The freestanding tests included the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick, Hopp, Strauss, & Thompson, 1997), the TOMM (Tombaugh, 1996), and the WMT (Green, 2003). The embedded PVTs included the Effort Index (EI) for the Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS; Randolph, 1998) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS; Babikian, Boone, Lu, & Arnold, 2006). Greater detail concerning the characteristics of the validity tests, such as the nature of the stimuli and administration procedures, are not presented herein the interest of maintaining test security and deterring coaching. The standalone PVTs were administered and scored by computer using standard instructions. Cutoffs for determining failure on the WMT were based on the test manual, i.e., 82.5% on IR, DR, or CNS. The RBANS EI was calculated by procedures described by Silverberg, Wertheimer, and Fichtenberg (2007). The cutoff for determining failure on the RBANS EI was based on the research by Armistead-Jehle and Hansen (2011) for a military sample. The cutoff used ( EI 1) had the highest sensitivity while maintaining a very low false-positive rate. A cutoff of 7 was used for RDS (Babikian et al.; Greiffenstein, Baker, & Gola, 1994; Jasinski, Berry, Shandera, & Clark, 2011). For the TOMM, the cutoffs used were 43 for Trial 1 and 49 for the other two trials. The cutoffs all had PPVs of 0.90 or greater for a base rate of 0.40 for PM, PDM, and DM groups used in the research by Jones (2013a). That research suggested that a base rate of 0.41 for PM based on failure of two or more validity tests in the military sample used in that research. The use of these nonstandard cutoffs for the TOMM is consistent with the findings of Stenclik, Miele, Silk-Eglit, Lynch, and McCaffrey (2013). They concluded that their research supported the use of a cutoff of 39 for Trial 1 and acutoffof<49 for Trial 2 and the Retention Trial in a sample of mtbi patients. Cutoffs used for the VSVT for the current research were 20, 18, and 41 for the Easy, Hard, and Total Scores, respectively. Research by Jones (2013b) indicated these cutoffs for the Hard and Total scores produced PPVs of at least 0.90 at a base rate of 0.40 for a PM and PDM groups. The cutoff for the easy items for the PM had a PPV of Cutoffs of <18 and <41 for the Hard and Total scores, respectively, were found to have the best classification accuracy for mtbi patients in the recent research by Silk-Eglit, Lynch, and Mccaffrey (2016). In general, the research cited earlier by Stenclik and coworkers and Silk-Eglit and coworkers as well as the cutoffs established in the Jones research on the TOMM and VSVT in predominantly mtbi sample and used in the current research support the use of nonstandard cutoffs. They are also consistent with cutoffs established in other research, as reviewed in the Jones research, using a variety of other samples (e.g., Grote et al., 2000; Greve, Bianchini, & Doane, 2006; Greve et al., 2006; Macciocchi, Seel, Alderson, & Godsall, 2006; Loring, Larrabee, Lee, & Meador, 2007; Greve, Etherton, Ord, Bianchini, & Curtis, 2009). Comparison Groups Four groups were used to establish cutoff scores for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF C-S SVTs. The PM group was based on failure of exactly two PVTs. The PDM group was based on failure of three or more PVTs, and the DM was composed of participants who performance on the VSVT was significantly below chance. All participants who performed significantly below chance on the WMT or TOMM also scored significantly below chance on the VSVT; three participants scored below chance on the WMT and four on the TOMM. The fourth malingering group included all participants in the PM, PDM, and DM groups (combined malingering group). The group thought not to be malingering (NM group) failed no PVTs administered to them and were administered at least two PVTs. The formation of the PM, PDM, and DM groups was based in large part on the simplification and refinements suggested by Larrabee, Greiffenstein, Greve, and Bianchini (2007) and Larrabee (2008) of the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria that have been widely used to diagnose MND. The Slick and coworkers criteria use a multidimensional and multimethod approach including evidence from neuropsychological testing and evidence from self-report. Larrabee and coworkers concluded that the Slick and coworkers criteria related to evidence from neuropsychological testing could be modified and simplified to allow multiple psychometric findings to define different levels of malingering regardless of other Slick and coworkers criteria. Larrabee (2008) stated that failure on two independent PVTs provides strong evidence for a diagnosis of PM (posttest probability =.90+), and failure on three PVTs provides very strong evidence of probable, if not definite, malingering. Larrabee and coworkers state that failure on three well-validated validity indicators appears to be associated with 100% probability of malingering and is statistically equivalent to definite MND (p. 357). However, they also indicate that although this is associated with 100% probability of malingering, scores at this level are not conceptually equivalent to the active avoidance of correct answers as associated with significantly worse-than-chance-performance on two-alternative forced choice testing, which would indicate conscious intent and DM. Of the 462 participants available, after MMPI-2 exclusion criteria were applied 395 completed at least two validity tests or failed the VSVT significantly below chance. Of these 395 participants, 155 failed at least two PVTs (or VSVT below
6 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); chance) and could be used to form the three malingering groups. The PM group was composed of 83 participants, and for this group, 62 of 71 failed the VSVT, 68 of 73 failed the TOMM, 10 of 50 failed the EI, 16 of 23 failed RDS, and 10 of 12 failed the WMT. Of the 44 individuals who met criteria for inclusion in the PDM group, 42 of 43 failed the VSVT, 43 of 43 failed the TOMM, 37 of 41 failed the EI, 10 of 12 failed RDS, and 10 of 10 failed the WMT. The DM group was composed of 28 participants who failed the VSVT at significantly below chance levels. The NM group was composed of 145 participants; 100 were administered the TOMM, 119 the VSVT, 56 RDS, 12 the WMT, and the RBANS EI was scored for 78 participants. Data Analysis The data analysis proceeded in four steps. First, it was necessary to establish that the validity measures were independent (i.e., not redundant) to ensure the validity of the composition of the three groups composed of those thought to be malingering. Larrabee (2008) and Nelson et al. (2003) used correlational analysis across the full range of scores to establish validity tests independence. However, it can be argued that for the current research the primary concern is establishing if there is an association between either passing or failing a validity test within a comparison group and not the association between the full range of scores on each validity test. This is important because, e.g., the PM group was composed of participants who failed exactly two validity tests in any combination. If the two tests failed were redundant, then it would be the equivalent to failing one test. However, when nonredundant tests are used, there is greater certainty that the individuals who were placed in the PM group were correctly classified, i.e., failed two nonredundant validity tests. This reasoning also applies to the PDM group. To establish independence for the PVTs used in this research, a chi-square analysis was completed to assess the association between the pass fail status for each the five PVTs used to establish the malingering comparison groups. Of the 462 participants in the total sample, 153 failed two or more PVTs and could be used for chi-square analysis. Two participants of the 155 participants in the comparisons groups failed only the VSVT below chance, i.e., they did not fail two PVTs. The second analysis involved comparing the means of the three comparison groups in terms of standardized units. This allowed for comparison with other research reporting effect sizes. The third analysis involved an examination of classification accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity for a range of cutoffs for the C-S SVTs. Cutoffs were calculated for cutoffs with specificities.90 and terminated when specificities reached 1.0 or when the maximum raw score for scale was reached. The sensitivity of a test is the proportion of people with a COI (condition of interest), in the case of this research malingering, who have a positive result (true positives). The specificity of a test is the proportion of people without the COI who have a negative result (1 specificity = false-positive rate). Sensitivity and specificity inform us of the accuracy of a test and not the probability that someone has the COI. The final analyses for the current research included calculation of PPVs, negative predictive values (NPVs), and the likelihood ratios for positive (LR+) and negative (LR ) test results. PVs and LRs are important in establishing post-test probabilities of having COI. The PPV of a test is defined as the proportion of people with a positive test result who actually have the COI. The NPV of a test is the proportion of people with a negative test result who do not have the COI. PVs are dependent on the prevalence or base rate of the COI (see Crawford, Garthwaite, and Betkowska (2009) for formulae for calculations of PVs). PVs for base rates ranging from 0.10 to 0.50 are provided in the current research and provide information about the probability of malingering at a given base rate. LR+ is defined as the probability of an individual with a COI having a positive test divided by the probability of an individual without the COI having a positive test (true positives/false positives). For example, if 80% of patients with the COI have a true positive test and only 6% of those who do not have the COI have a positive test (false positive), then the LR+ for the ability of the test to detect the COI is 13 (80%/6%). This indicates that a person with the COI is 13 times more likely to have a positive test than a person who does not have the COI. If the probability of having a positive test were the same in those with and without the COI, then the LR would be 1. This would indicate the test is not useful in differentiating the two groups. Individuals with a COI should be much more likely to have an abnormal test result than individuals without the COI. The likelihood ratio for a negative test (LR ) is defined as the probability of an individual with a COI having a negative test divided by the probability of an individual without the COI having a negative test (1 sensitivity/specificity). A LR greater than 1 indicates that a negative test is more likely to occur in people with the COI than in people without the COI. A LR less than 1 mean that a negative test is less likely to occur in people with the COI compared to people without the COI (Grimes & Schulz, 2005; Bowden & Loring, 2009). An example of the calculation of post-test probabilities of a COI can be found in Jones (2013b), and online calculators are readily available to simplify the process. The Fagan (1975) nomogram, which is also readily available online or in text books (e.g., Sackett, Haynes, Guyatt, & Tugwell, 1991), can also be used to provide a fast and easy estimate of a post-test probability.
7 792 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); Table 1. Chi-square analysis for validity test independence: two or more failed performance validity tests VSVT EI WMT RDS χ 2 ϕ p a N χ 2 ϕ p N χ 2 ϕ p N χ 2 ϕ p N TOMM b 20 VSVT EI WMT Note: VSVT = Victoria Symptom Validity Test, EI = Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Effort Index, WMT = Word Memory Test, RDS = Reliable Digit Span, TOMM = Test of Memory Malingering. a The probability levels are based on χ 2. There is no difference in the pattern of significant and nonsignificant results when compared to Fisher s Exact Test. b Values could not computed because failure on the TOMM is a constant, i.e., of the 20 participants who met inclusion criteria for this analysis, 14 failed and 6 passed RDS and all participants failed the TOMM. Table 2. Chi-square analysis for validity test independence: one or more failed performance validity test Results VSVT EI WMT RDS χ 2 ϕ p a N χ 2 ϕ p N χ 2 ϕ p N χ 2 ϕ p N TOMM VSVT EI GWMT Note: VSVT = Victoria Symptom Validity Test, EI = Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Effort Index, WMT = Word Memory Test, RDS = Reliable Digit Span, TOMM = Test of Memory Malingering. a The probability levels are based on χ 2. There is no difference in the pattern of significant and nonsignificant results when compared to Fisher s Exact Test. The results of the chi-square analysis using failure on two or more PVTs to assess redundancy (Table 1) indicate that there are no statistically significant associations between passing or failing the PVTs used in this research for those who failed PVTs. However, some of the analyses had very small cell sizes or empty cells. In an attempt to address this problem, an additional analysis (Table 2) was completed using participants failing one or more PVTs rather than two or more PVTs used in the initial analysis. Although some associations were statistically significant in this second analysis, the results of this analysis also indicate that PVT redundancy is not a problem. Where there are statistically significant associations (TOMM and EI, VSVT and EI, TOMM and RDS), the amount of shared variance was minimal 0.03, 0.05 and 14%, respectively. Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (2003) suggest that correlations in the range of ( % shared variance) indicate little if any correlation between variables and correlations in the range of ( % shared variance) indicate low correlations. Based on the two chi-square analyses, it appears that the relationship between the PVTs is minimal, and the formation of the malingering groups is valid, i.e., not based on redundant PVTs. The effect size analysis (Table 3) indicates that there were large effect sizes based on Cohen s (1988) general recommendations for classifying standardized effects sizes for all C-S SVTs across all malingering groups. RBS performed best overall based on the mean effect size for the PM, PDM, and DM groups. Based on Ferguson s (2009) criteria for moderate effect size (practically significant = 0.41, moderate = 1.15; strong = 2.70), only RBS had at least moderate effect sizes for all malingering groups. All scales had moderate effect sizes for the PDM and DM groups (range, ) based on Ferguson s criteria. The results for cutoff scores for the C-S SVTs with a minimum specificity of 0.90 are provided in Tables 4 9. Calculation of cutoffs was terminated when specificities reached 1.0 or the maximum score on the scale. These tables provide statistics related to test accuracy, PVs, and LRs. It should be noted that a value of appears in the LR column for some cutoffs. This is because a value of, an undefined value, results when a zero enters into the calculation of the LR. For example, for cutoff of 21 for FBS (Table 4) the LR+=Sensitivity/(1 Specificity), which results in a LR+ =0.14/(1 1) or LR+ =0.14/0. It should also be noted that the calculation of LRs was based on sensitivities and specificities to five decimal places, not the rounded values provided in this table. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated at three decimal places. Sensitivities, specificities, and PPV will be discussed here and LRs will be explored in the Discussion section. PPVs discussed in this section will be based primarily on a base rate of 0.40 that is similar to estimates of malingering found in litigating TBI patients and in military and other samples (Mittenberg, Patton, Canyock, & Condit, 2002; Larrabee, 2007; Larrabee, Millis, & Meyers, 2009; Jones, 2013b).
8 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); Table 3. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes for the probable malingering (PM), probable to definite (PDM), definite malingering (DM), and combined groups vs. non-malingering (NM) groups for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Cognitive-Somatic Validity scales Group NM (N = 145) PM (N = 83) PDM (N = 44) DM (N = 28) Combined a Effect Size Cohen s d for NM vs. M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD PM PDM DM Combined M b RBS FBS FBS-r Fs HHI HHI-r Note: RBS = Response Bias Scale, FBS = MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale, FBS-r = MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale, Fs = Infrequent Somatic Responses Scale, HHI = MMPI-2 Henry Heilbronner Index, HHI-r = MMPI-2-RF Henry Heilbronner Index. a This group is composed of all participants in the PM, PDM, and DM groups (N = 155). b Mean effect size for the PM, PDM, and DM groups. Table 4. Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and likelihood ratios for cutoff scores for the response bias scale (RBS) Cutoff a Test accuracy (95% CI) PPV for select base rates NPV for select base rates Likelihood ratios (95% CI) Sensitivity Specificity Positive test Negative test Definite Malingering RBS ( ) 0.93 ( ) ( ) 0.31 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.94 ( ) ( ) 0.45 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.60 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.63 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.77 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.98 ( ) ( ) 0.77 ( ) RBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Probable to Definite Malingering RBS ( ) 0.93 ( ) ( ) 0.49 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.94 ( ) ( ) 0.53 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.69 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.81 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.89 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.98 ( ) ( ) 0.93 ( ) RBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Probable Malingering RBS ( ) 0.93 ( ) ( ) 0.61 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.94 ( ) ( ) 0.71 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.83 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.89 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.94 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.98 ( ) ( ) 0.98 ( ) RBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Combined Malingering Groups RBS ( ) 0.93 ( ) ( ) 0.52 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.94 ( ) ( ) 0.61 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.75 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.96 ( ) ( ) 0.82 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.90 ( ) RBS ( ) 0.98 ( ) ( ) 0.93 ( ) RBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) a T-score equivalents for raw scores: 15 = 92, 16 = 97, 17 = 101, 18 = 105, 19 = 109, 20 = 114, 21 = 118. With respect to cutoff scores based on specificities, an RBS cutoff of 15 produced a specificity of 0.93 for all malingering groups, and a score of 21 resulted in perfect specificity for all groups. An RBS cutoff of 15 had the highest sensitivity (0.71) for the DM group, and this was the highest sensitivity of all the C-S SVTs examined in this research. None of the RBS cutoffs resulted in a PPV of at least 0.90 at a base rate of 0.40, except for a cutoff of greater than or equal to 21. The PPV at a cutoff
9 794 A. Jones / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 (2016); Table 5. Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and likelihood ratios for cutoff scores for the MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) Cutoff Test accuracy (95% CI) PPV for select base rates NPV for select base rates Likelihood ratios (95% CI) Sensitivity Specificity Positive test Negative test Definite Malingering FBS ( ) 0.92 ( ) ( ) 0.62 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.63 ( ) FBS 27/ ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.69 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.68 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.83 ( ) FBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Probable to Definite Malingering FBS ( ) 0.92 ( ) ( ) 0.52 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.52 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.60 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.67 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.73 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.78 ( ) FBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Probable Malingering FBS ( ) 0.92 ( ) ( ) 0.80 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.80 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.78 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.84 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.85 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.92 ( ) FBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) Combined Malingering Groups FBS ( ) 0.92 ( ) ( ) 0.68 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.97 ( ) ( ) 0.69 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.71 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.77 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.79 ( ) FBS ( ) 0.99 ( ) ( ) 0.86 ( ) FBS ( ) 1.0 ( ) ( ) of greater than or equal to 21 was 1.0 for all malingering groups and at all base rates. This was obtained at a specificity of 1.0, which will of course result in a PPV of 1.0 and an infinitely large LR+. An FBS cutoff of 20 resulted in a specificity of 0.92 across all groups, and a cutoff of 31 resulted in perfect specificities for all groups. An FBS cutoff of 25 produced the highest sensitivity (0.52), which was found for the PDM group. PPVs of at least 0.92 were found for scores 27 across all groups at a 0.40 base rate, except for the PDM group, where there was a PPV of 0.91 for a cutoff of 26. For FBS-r, the cutoffs with a specificity of at least 0.90 ranged from 17 (0.92) to 21 (1.0) and with the highest sensitivity (0.59) for the PDM group (cutoff 17). A cutoff of 20 for the DM group and a cutoff of 18 for the PDM group had PPVs of No other cutoffs had a PPV of at least 0.90, except for a cutoff of 2, which had a specificity of 1.0 for all groups resulting in perfect PPVs. The range of cutoff score for Fs was 6 to 10 with specificities greater than or equal to 0.94, and the highest sensitivity (0.46) was for the DM group. PPVs greater than or equal to 0.90 were found for cutoffs 7 for the DM group and 8 for the PDM group (except for a cutoff of 9 for the PDM group; PPV = 0.81). A cutoff of 10 resulted in perfect specificities for all groups. For HHI, cutoffs ranged from 12 to 15 (15 is the maximum score for HHI) with specificities across all groups greater than or equal to A cutoff of 15 had specificities of 1.0 for all groups. The highest sensitivity (0.61) occurred for a cutoff of 12 for the DM group. Cutoffs 14 produced PPVs The cutoffs for HHI-r ranged from 9 to 11 (11 is the maximum score for HHI-r). Specificities were 0.93 or greater for all cutoffs in all groups, and no cutoffs had a specificity of 1.0. The highest specificity (0.99) was for a cutoff of 11 in all groups. The highest sensitivity was 0.57 for the DM group. PPVs of 0.90 or greater occurred only for a cutoff of 11.
Exaggerated MMPI-2 symptom report in personal injury litigants with malingered neurocognitive deficit
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 673 686 Exaggerated MMPI-2 symptom report in personal injury litigants with malingered neurocognitive deficit Glenn J. Larrabee Suite 202, 630 South Orange
More informationThe Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Effort Scale
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 27 (2012) 190 195 The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Effort Scale Julia Novitski 1,2, Shelly Steele 2, Stella Karantzoulis 3, Christopher
More informationKEVIN J. BIANCHINI, PH.D., ABPN
KEVIN J. BIANCHINI, PH.D., ABPN Slick et al., 1999 Bianchini et al., 2005 4 4 Criterion A: Evidence of significant external incentive Criterion B: Evidence from physical evaluation 1. Probable effort
More informationA Multi-Method Assessment Approach to the Detection of Malingered Pain: Association with the MMPI-2 Restructured Form
Eastern Kentucky University Encompass Online Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 2011 A Multi-Method Assessment Approach to the Detection of Malingered Pain: Association with the MMPI-2 Restructured
More informationCommentary on Delis and Wetter, Cogniform disorder and cogniform condition: Proposed diagnoses for excessive cognitive symptoms
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 683 687 Abstract Commentary Commentary on Delis and Wetter, Cogniform disorder and cogniform condition: Proposed diagnoses for excessive cognitive symptoms
More informationThe Albany Consistency Index for the Test of Memory Malingering
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 27 (2012) 1 9 The Albany Consistency Index for the Test of Memory Malingering Jessica H. Gunner 1, *, Andrea S. Miele 1, Julie K. Lynch 2, Robert J. McCaffrey 1,2 1
More informationComparison of Performance of the Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test in a Criminal Forensic Sample
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Advance Access published May 5, 2015 Comparison of Performance of the Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test in a Criminal Forensic Sample Rachel L. Fazio
More informationDetection and diagnosis of malingering in electrical injury
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 20 (2005) 365 373 Detection and diagnosis of malingering in electrical injury Kevin Bianchini a,b, Jeffrey M. Love a,1, Kevin W. Greve a,b,, Donald Adams c Abstract
More informationValidation of the Symptoms of Post- Concussion Syndrome Questionnaire as a Self-Report Symptom Validity Test: A Simulation Study. Victoria Jayne Reece
Validation of the Symptoms of Post- Concussion Syndrome Questionnaire as a Self-Report Symptom Validity Test: A Simulation Study Victoria Jayne Reece Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
More informationPerformance profiles and cut-off scores on the Memory Assessment Scales
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 489 496 Performance profiles and cut-off scores on the Memory Assessment Scales Sid E. O Bryant a, Kevin Duff b, Jerid Fisher c, Robert J. McCaffrey a,d,
More informationCharacterization of the Medical Symptom Validity Test in evaluation of clinically referred memory disorders clinic patients
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 753 761 Characterization of the Medical Symptom Validity Test in evaluation of clinically referred memory disorders clinic patients Abstract Laura L.S. Howe
More informationTHE EFFICIACY OF THE MMPI-2 LEES- HALEY FAKE BAD SCALE (FBS) FOR DIFFERENTIATING NEUROCOGNITIVE AND PSYCHIATRIC FEIGNERS
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2003 THE EFFICIACY OF THE MMPI-2 LEES- HALEY FAKE BAD SCALE (FBS) FOR DIFFERENTIATING NEUROCOGNITIVE AND
More informationUtility of the MMPI 2-RF (Restructured Form) Validity Scales in Detecting Malingering in a Criminal Forensic Setting: A Known-Groups Design
Eastern Kentucky University Encompass Psychology Faculty and Staff Research Psychology March 2010 Utility of the MMPI 2-RF (Restructured Form) Validity Scales in Detecting Malingering in a Criminal Forensic
More informationThe unexamined lie is a lie worth fibbing Neuropsychological malingering and the Word Memory Test
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 17 (2002) 709 714 The unexamined lie is a lie worth fibbing Neuropsychological malingering and the Word Memory Test David E. Hartman Private Practice/Chicago Medical
More informationArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology Advance Access published April 27, John H. Denning*
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Advance Access published April 27, 2012 The Efficiency and Accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, Errors on the First 10 Items of The Test of Memory Malingering,
More informationBackground 6/24/2014. Validity Testing in Pediatric Populations. Michael Kirkwood, PhD, ABPP/CN. Conflict of Interest Statement
Validity Testing in Pediatric Populations Michael Kirkwood, PhD, ABPP/CN Background Board Certified Clinical Neuropsychologist at Children s Hospital Colorado Exclusively pediatric-focused Patient work
More informationSENSITIVITY OF AN MMPI-2-RF COMBINED RESPONSE INCONSISTENCY (CRIN) SCALE TO MIXED RESPONDING
SENSITIVITY OF AN MMPI-2-RF COMBINED RESPONSE INCONSISTENCY (CRIN) SCALE TO MIXED RESPONDING Kendall Whitney, Taylor Chille, Danielle Burchett, Ph.D. California State University, Monterey Bay Yossef S.
More informationMalingering Detection among Accommodation- Seeking University Students
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2010-06-25 Malingering Detection among Accommodation- Seeking University Students Spencer Paul Clayton Brigham Young University
More informationPsychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Veterans: The Utility of the MMPI 2 RF Validity Scales in Detecting Overreported Symptoms Brandee E. Goodwin, Martin Sellbom, and Paul A. Arbisi
More informationFinancial Disclosure
Historical, Conceptual and Empirical Factors in Performance and Symptom Validity Assessment Glenn J. Larrabee, Ph.D., ABPP Cn Financial Disclosure I have financial relationships to disclose: I receive
More informationDonald A. Davidoff, Ph.D., ABPDC Chief, Neuropsychology Department, McLean Hospital Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harvard Medical School
Donald A. Davidoff, Ph.D., ABPDC Chief, Neuropsychology Department, McLean Hospital Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harvard Medical School Interests: Adult/Geriatric/Forensic Neuropsychology ddavidoff@mclean.harvard.edu
More informationInfluence of poor effort on self-reported symptoms and neurocognitive test performance following mild traumatic brain injury
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ISSN: 1380-3395 (Print) 1744-411X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen20 Influence of poor effort on self-reported symptoms
More informationYour choice of SVTs is fundamental to the Slick et al criteria Paul Green Ph.D. paulgreen@shaw.ca www.wordmemorytest.com Central to the criteria is the presence of cognitive symptom exaggeration or feigning
More informationMMPI-2 short form proposal: CAUTION
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 521 527 Abstract MMPI-2 short form proposal: CAUTION Carlton S. Gass, Camille Gonzalez Neuropsychology Division, Psychology Service (116-B), Veterans Affairs
More informationAN ESTABLISHMENT OF EMBEDDED SYMPTOM VALIDITY TESTING WITHIN THE DELIS-KAPLAN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING SYSTEM. A Dissertation by. Emanuel J.
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF EMBEDDED SYMPTOM VALIDITY TESTING WITHIN THE DELIS-KAPLAN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING SYSTEM A Dissertation by Emanuel J. VonDran Master of Arts, Wichita State University, 2011 Bachelor of
More informationMalingering (AADEP Position Paper) The gross volitional exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms/dysfunction for the purpose of obtaining substantial m
Malingering in Pain Management Gerald M. Aronoff, M.D. Medical Director, Carolina Pain Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA General Principles Treating physician vs IME physician Subjective history is not fact
More informationInternational Journal of Forensic Psychology Copyright Volume 1, No. 2 SEPTEMBER 2004 pp
International Journal of Forensic Psychology Copyright 2004 Volume 1, No. 2 SEPTEMBER 2004 pp. 94-98 Commentary on The Detection of Feigned Uncoached and Coached Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with the
More informationCharacteristics of Compensable Disability Patients Who Choose to Litigate
REGULAR Characteristics of Compensable Disability Patients Who Choose to Litigate Richard I. Lanyon, PhD, and Eugene R. Almer, MD ARTICLE This study tested the hypothesis that personal characteristics,
More informationImproving Accuracy in the. through the use of Technology
Improving Accuracy in the Assessment of Malingering through the use of Technology Lisa Drago Piechowski, PhD, ABPP American School of Professional Psychology, Washington DC Key Points Assessment of malingering
More informationAgenda. The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) Forensic Practice Briefing. Disclosure
The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) Forensic Practice Briefing Yossef S. Ben-Porath Department of Psychology Kent State University Kent, OH ybenpora@kent.edu Disclosure Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant
More informationThe vulnerability to coaching across measures of malingering
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2007 The vulnerability to coaching across measures of malingering Adrianne M. Brennan Louisiana State University
More informationChapter 2 Malingering: Definitional and Conceptual Ambiguities and Prevalence or Base Rates
Chapter 2 Malingering: Definitional and Conceptual Ambiguities and Prevalence or Base Rates 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents different approaches to the definition of malingering, such as the psychiatric
More informationUniversity of Kentucky Master's Theses
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2006 THE UTILITY OF THE STRUCTURED INVENTORY OF MALINGERED SYMPTOMATOLOGY AS A SCREEN FOR THE FEIGNING OF NEUROCOGNITIVE
More informationSimulated subaverage performance on the Block Span task of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales- Fifth Edition
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2011 Simulated subaverage performance on the Block Span task of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales- Fifth Edition
More informationProfessional Practice Guidelines for the Use and Interpretation of SVTs: The Time Has Come. Jerry Sweet May 20, 2011 London, England
Professional Practice Guidelines for the Use and Interpretation of SVTs: The Time Has Come Jerry Sweet May 20, 2011 London, England Preview Statements of the obvious Symptom validity testing is a mature
More informationA Comparison of Two BHI Measures of Faking
Paper Presentation to the American Psychological Association 2000 National Convention A Comparison of Two BHI Measures of Faking Daniel Bruns, PsyD Health Psychology Associates Greeley, Colorado www.healthpsych.com
More informationMalingering detection in a Spanish population with a known-groups design
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 23 (2008) 365 377 Malingering detection in a Spanish population with a known-groups design Raquel Vilar-López a,, Manuel Gómez-Río b, Sandra Santiago-Ramajo a, Antonio
More informationMalingering Detection Measure Utility and Concordance in a University Accommodation- Seeking Student Population
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2012-07-03 Malingering Detection Measure Utility and Concordance in a University Accommodation- Seeking Student Population Nichole
More informationFactors Influencing the Face Validity of Effort Tests: Timing of Warning and Feedback
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2 Factors Influencing the Face Validity of Effort Tests: Timing
More informationThe Utility of the NEO PI R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI 2
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 88(3), 276 283 Copyright C 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ARTICLES The Utility of the NEO PI R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With
More informationVALIDATION OF THE MILLER FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF SYMPTOMS TEST (M- FAST) IN A CIVIL FORENSIC POPULATION
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2006 VALIDATION OF THE MILLER FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF SYMPTOMS TEST (M- FAST) IN A CIVIL FORENSIC POPULATION Jessica
More informationAward Number: W81XWH
AD Award Number: W81XWH-08-2-0050 TITLE: PT073853: Mild TBI Following Exposure to Explosive Devices: Device Characteristics, Neuropsychological Functioning, and Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
More informationCriterion validity of the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) after traumatic brain injury
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 143 149 Criterion validity of the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) after traumatic brain injury Monica L. Jacobs, Jacobus Donders
More informationRBANS Embedded Measures of Suboptimal Effort in Dementia: Effort Scale Has a Lower Failure Rate than the Effort Index
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 30 (2015) 1 6 RBANS Embedded Measures of Suboptimal Effort in Dementia: Effort Scale Has a Lower Failure Rate than the Effort Index Rachel L. Burton 1, Joe Enright
More informationNeuropsychology of TBI & PTSD
Neuropsychology of TBI & PTSD George S. Serna, Ph.D. Louis Stokes VA Medical Center TBI: The Signature Injury of the Iraq/Afghanistan War Veteran? 19% - 30% of OEF/OIF veterans reported some level of TBI
More informationWPE. WebPsychEmpiricist
McKinzey, R. K., Podd, M., & Kreibehl, M. A. (6/25/04). Concurrent validity of the TOMM and LNNB. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved (date), from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html WPE WebPsychEmpiricist Concurrent
More informationEcological Validity of the WMS-III Rarely Missed Index in Personal Injury Litigation. Rael T. Lange. Riverview Hospital.
This is the authors version of a paper that will be published as: Lange, Rael T. Lange and Sullivan, Karen A. and Anderson, Debbie (2005) Ecological validity of the WMS-III Rarely Missed Index in personal
More informationPublished online: 25 Aug 2014.
This article was downloaded by: [Dr Robert Denney] On: 27 March 2015, At: 10:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
More informationDETECTION OF MALINGERED MENTAL RETARDATION
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2006 DETECTION OF MALINGERED MENTAL RETARDATION Lili Odom Graue University of Kentucky, lili.graue@uky.edu Click
More informationCVLT-II Forced Choice Recognition Trial as an Embedded Validity Indicator: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2016), 22, 851 858. Copyright INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2016. doi:10.1017/s1355617716000746 BRIEF COMMUNICATION CVLT-II Forced
More informationDetermining causation of traumatic versus preexisting. conditions. David Fisher, Ph.D., ABPP, LP Chairman of the Board PsyBar, LLC
Determining causation of traumatic versus preexisting psychological conditions David Fisher, Ph.D., ABPP, LP Chairman of the Board PsyBar, LLC 952 285 9000 Part 1: First steps to determine causation Information
More informationEffects of severe depression on TOMM performance among disability-seeking outpatients
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 161 165 Effects of severe depression on TOMM performance among disability-seeking outpatients Y. Tami Yanez, William Fremouw, Jennifer Tennant, Julia Strunk,
More informationTHE VALIDITY OF THE LETTER MEMORY TEST AS A MEASURE OF MEMORY MALINGERING: ROBUSTNESS TO COACHING. A dissertation presented to.
THE VALIDITY OF THE LETTER MEMORY TEST AS A MEASURE OF MEMORY MALINGERING: ROBUSTNESS TO COACHING A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial
More informationPassing or Failing of Symptom Validity Tests in Academic Accessibility Populations: Neuropsychological Assessment of Near-Pass Patients
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2015-06-01 Passing or Failing of Symptom Validity Tests in Academic Accessibility Populations: Neuropsychological Assessment of
More informationISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage:
The Clinical Neuropsychologist ISSN: 1385-4046 (Print) 1744-4144 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ntcn20 Official Position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Social
More informationAbstract PERFORMANCE OF THE IMMEDIATE POST-CONCUSSION ASSESSMENT AND
Abstract MANDERINO, LISA M., M.A., MARCH 2017 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES PERFORMANCE OF THE IMMEDIATE POST-CONCUSSION ASSESSMENT AND COGNITIVE TESTING PROTOCOL VALIDITY INDICES (40 pp.) Thesis Advisor: John
More informationNoncredible Explanations of Noncredible Performance on Symptom Validity Tests
Noncredible Explanations of Noncredible Performance on Symptom Validity Tests 5 Paul Green & Thomas Merten WHAT DO NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL AND EFFORT TESTS MEASURE? Neuropsychological Tests Neuropsychologists
More informationPLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:[wayne State University] On: 27 February 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 788872989] Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
More informationTHE MMPI 2 RF. Overview of the MMPI-2-RF. Agenda. Overview of the MMPI-2-RF. Overview of the MMPI-2-RF 9/8/2016. Psychometric Rationale & Properties
1 Agenda 2 THE MMPI 2 RF Introduction and Overview of the MMPI-2-RF Examination of psychometric properties Psychometrics, Psychopathological Convergence, and Setting Specific Utility Mapping the MMPI-2-RF
More informationThe Traumatic Events Inventory: Preliminary Investigation of a New PTSD Questionnaire
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU ETD Archive 2009 The Traumatic Events Inventory: Preliminary Investigation of a New PTSD Questionnaire Kirk Robert Bryant Cleveland State University Follow
More informationCase Description: Mr. F Personnel Screening, Law Enforcement Score Report
REPORT Case Description: Mr. F Personnel Screening, Law Enforcement Score Report Mr. F is a -year-old single male who was evaluated as a candidate for an entry-level law enforcement officer position with
More informationElderly Norms for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised*
The Clinical Neuropsychologist -//-$., Vol., No., pp. - Swets & Zeitlinger Elderly Norms for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised* Rodney D. Vanderploeg, John A. Schinka, Tatyana Jones, Brent J. Small,
More informationThe effect of distraction on the Word Memory Test and Test of Memory Malingering performance in patients with a severe brain injury
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2008), 14, 1074 1080. Copyright 2008 INS. Published by Cambridge University Press. Printed in the USA. doi:10.10170s135561770808137x BRIEF COMMUNICATION
More informationTHE WORD READING TEST OF EFFORT IN ADULT LEARNING DISABILITY: A SIMULATION STUDY
The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20: 315 324, 2006 Copyright # Taylor and Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1385-4046 print=1744-4144 online DOI: 10.1080/13854040590947434 THE WORD READING TEST OF EFFORT IN ADULT
More informationUSE OF THE MMPI-2-RF IN POLICE & PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
USE OF THE MMPI-2-RF IN POLICE & PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS Yossef S. Ben-Porath Kent State University ybenpora@kent.edu Disclosure Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University
More informationMMPI-2-RF References by Topic June 2018
MMPI-2-RF References by Topic June 2018 BASIC SOURCES Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form): Manual for administration,
More informationExperimental study examining observational and objective methods of assessing effort in an undergraduate sample
University of Northern Colorado Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC Dissertations Student Research 12-1-2013 Experimental study examining observational and objective methods of assessing effort
More informationE. Miriam Schmitt-Monreal
RUNNING HEAD: Feigned TBI TOMM, DCT and Coaching 1 Feigning Cognitive Symptoms after TBI: Validation of the TOMM and DCT and the Influence of Coaching E. Miriam Schmitt-Monreal Master Thesis - Master programme
More informationPublished online: 12 Dec 2014.
This article was downloaded by: [52.1.27.110] On: 26 August 2015, At: 23:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
More informationDetecting malingered ADHD using the personality assessment inventory : an exploratory analysis in college students
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2013 Detecting malingered ADHD using the personality assessment inventory : an exploratory analysis in college
More informationMedical Symptom Validity Test Performance Following Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Expectations Based on Orientation Log Classification
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 32 (2017) 339 348 Medical Symptom Validity Test Performance Following Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Expectations Based on Orientation Log Classification Abstract
More informationImpact of Using Raw Versus Uniform T Scores in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Descriptive and Inferential Research
California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB CSU Student Research Competition Delegate Entries Undergraduate Research Opportunities Center (UROC) 4-29-2017 Impact of Using Raw Versus
More informationRunning head: UNDER-REPORTING ON MMPI-2-RF AND COLLATERAL MEASURES 1
Running head: UNDER-REPORTING ON MMPI-2-RF AND COLLATERAL MEASURES 1 INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF ELEVATED UNDER REPORTING SCALES ON SELECTED MMPI-2-RF SUBSTANTIVE SCALES AND COLLATERAL MEASURES IN A CORRECTIONAL
More informationSAMPLE. Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings. Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD TRADE SECRET INFORMATION
Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD MMPI--RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation MMPI--RF MMPI--RF logo Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
More informationMmpi 2 Test Questions Answers Samian
We have made it easy for you to find a PDF Ebooks without any digging. And by having access to our ebooks online or by storing it on your computer, you have convenient answers with mmpi 2 test questions
More informationThe assessment of malingering in claims of retrograde and anterograde amnesia.
University of Essex Department of Psychology PS902: Neuropsychology of memory This document is the property of Espen A. Sjoberg. You are free to use the information in this document provided that you reference
More informationSAMPLE REPORT. Case Description: Frank Correctional Score Report
SAMPLE REPORT Case Description: Frank Correctional Score Report Frank is a 6-year-old male referred for a psychological evaluation to ascertain treatment recommendations for extreme acting-out behaviors.
More informationPain, Malingering, and Performance on the WAIS-III Processing Speed Index
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28:1218 1237, 2006 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1380-3395 DOI: 10.1080/13803390500346595 Pain, Malingering, and Performance on the WAIS-III
More informationDiscriminant Function Analysis of Malingerers and Neurological Headache Patients Self- Reports of Neuropsychological Symptoms
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 561 567, 1998 Copyright 1998 National Academy of Neuropsychology Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0887-6177/98 $19.00.00 PII S0887-6177(97)00072-3
More informationHead injury and the ability to feign neuropsychological deficits
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 37 48 Head injury and the ability to feign neuropsychological deficits Chad D. Vickery, David T.R. Berry, Chantel S. Dearth, Victoria L. Vagnini, Raymond
More informationMalingering vs Credibility: A call of caution and robust clinical analysis
Malingering vs Credibility: A call of caution and robust clinical analysis CAPDA January 2012 Dr. J. Douglas Salmon Jr. CEO, Rehabilitation Research, Education & Evaluation Services (RREES) Slick et al.
More informationMinimizing Misdiagnosis: Psychometric Criteria for Possible or Probable Memory Impairment
Original Research Article DOI: 10.1159/000215390 Accepted: January 30, 2009 Published online: April 28, 2009 Minimizing Misdiagnosis: Psychometric Criteria for Possible or Probable Memory Impairment Brian
More informationAttention and Memory Dysfunction in Pain Patients While Controlling for Effort on the California Verbal Learning Test-11
University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses 8-10-2005 Attention and Memory Dysfunction in Pain Patients While Controlling for
More informationThis article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
More informationMMPI-2-RF References by Topic July 2017
MMPI-2-RF References by Topic July 2017 BASIC SOURCES Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration,
More informationCognitive-Behavioral Assessment of Depression: Clinical Validation of the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1983, Vol. 51, No. 5, 721-725 Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Cognitive-Behavioral Assessment of Depression: Clinical Validation
More informationChapter 23. Detection of Children s Malingering on Raven s Standard Progressive Matrices*
Chapter 23 Detection of Children s Malingering on Raven s Standard Progressive Matrices* R. Kim McKinzey, Jörg Prieler, and John Raven** Abstract A formula for detecting faked Raven s Standard Progressive
More informationTrends in Psychological/ Psychiatric Injury and Law
Trends in Psychological/ Psychiatric Injury and Law Continuing Education Webinar 2011 Gerald Young, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Glendon College, York University 2275 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario,
More informationImproving the Methodology for Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment Across the Lifespan
Improving the Methodology for Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment Across the Lifespan Grant L. Iverson, Ph.D, Professor Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Harvard Medical School & Red Sox
More informationSAMPLE REPORT. Case Description: Julie School Setting Score Report
SAMPLE REPORT Case Description: Julie School Setting Score Report Julie, 6 years old, was transferred to a closed residential treatment facility from an inpatient psychiatric hospital. Julie s recent psychiatric
More informationCase Description: Mr. D Bariatric Surgery Candidate Score Report
Case Description: Mr. D Bariatric Surgery Candidate Score Report REPORT Mr. D is a 32-year-old, separated man assessed at a medical facility as a candidate for bariatric surgery. He was morbidly obese,
More informationA Comparison of MMPI 2 High-Point Coding Strategies
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 79(2), 243 256 Copyright 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. A Comparison of MMPI 2 High-Point Coding Strategies Robert E. McGrath, Tayyab Rashid, and Judy Hayman
More informationThe Use of Significant Others to Enhance the Detection of Malingerers From Traumatically Brain-Injured Patients
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 465 477, 2000 Copyright 2000 National Academy of Neuropsychology Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0887-6177/00 $ see front matter PII S0887-6177(00)00058-5
More informationInterpretive Report. Client Information
Interpretive Report Developed by Michelle R. Widows, PhD, Glenn P. Smith, PhD, and PAR Staff Client Information Client name: Sample Client Client ID: SIMS Test date: 08/12/2013 Date of birth: 02/03/1975
More informationComparison of Oral and Computerized Versions of the Word Memory Test
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 25 (2010) 591 600 Comparison of Oral and Computerized s of the Word Memory Test Abstract Laura L. Hoskins 1, *, Laurence M. Binder 2, Naomi S. Chaytor 3,4, David J.
More informationFinancial Disclosure
National Academy of Neuropsychology November 5, 2015 Performance Validity Testing in At-Risk Populations Kyle Brauer Boone, Ph.D. California School of Forensic Studies Alliant International University
More informationAssessment of Suboptimal Effort Using the CVLT- II Recognition Foils: A Known-Groups Comparison
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2011 Assessment of Suboptimal Effort Using the CVLT- II Recognition Foils: A Known-Groups Comparison Matias Mariani University
More informationWriting a Good Cookbook: I. A Review of MMPI High-Point Code System Studies
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 73(2), 149 178 Copyright 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Writing a Good Cookbook: I. A Review of MMPI High-Point Code System Studies Robert E. McGrath and Joel
More informationCurriculum Vitae Dustin B. Wygant, Ph.D.
Curriculum Vitae Dustin B. Wygant, Ph.D. ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION Department of Psychology Eastern Kentucky University 127 Cammack Building 521 Lancaster Avenue Richmond, Kentucky 40475 (859) 622-5871
More informationComparison of Male and Female Response Behaviour on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
Comparison of Male and Female Response Behaviour on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Dr. Hayfa Tayseer Elbokai & Dr. Aziz Ahmad Alrhamneh Special Education Dep., Al- Balqa' Applied University,
More information