Citation

Lace JW, Grant AF, Kosky KM, Teague CL, Lowell KT, Gfeller JD. Psychol. Inj. Law 2020; 13(3): 303-315.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s12207-020-09382-x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

While literature on performance validity tests (PVTs) in neuropsychological assessment has examined memory-based paradigms, other research has suggested that tests of attention, visuospatial ability, and language may also detect noncredible performance. Previous work has identified several PVTs in the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), though all of them emphasize memory-based subtests. This study sought to determine if PVT formulas can be derived from exclusively non-memory RBANS subtests (i.e., Figure Copy, Line Orientation, Picture Naming, Semantic Fluency, Digit Span, and Coding) using an analog simulation study. Seventy-two undergraduate participants (M age = 18.9) were assigned to either an asymptomatic (AS) group, which was instructed to perform optimally, or a simulated mild traumatic brain injury (S-mTBI) group, which received symptom and test coaching to help simulate mTBI-related impairment. Participants were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests, including the RBANS and standalone PVTs. Differences were found between groups for all RBANS subtests of interest except Picture Naming. Five subtests showing meaningful group differences were entered as predictor variables as one set in logistic regressions (LR); raw and norm-based scores were considered separately. Both LRs accurately classified 90.3% of cases with good sensitivity (.89) while maintaining ideal specificity (.92). Two exponentiated equations were described from LR results, with both yielding good discriminability (AUCs = .94), generally comparable with other PVTs. These findings suggested that non-memory RBANS subtests may be sensitive to noncredible performance and reiterate the importance of considering tests of various cognitive abilities when assessing performance validity during neuropsychological assessment. Limitations of this study and directions for future inquiry, including necessity for validation in a clinical sample, were discussed.

Language: en