Neuropsychological evaluations are used to examine a person’s current cognitive functioning. Performance validity tests (PVT) are included in neuropsychological test batteries to ensure that examinees are performing to the best of their abilities and identify non-credible performance. There are two types of PVTs: freestanding and embedded. A freestanding PVT is a cognitive test created to evaluate performance validity and do not measure any type of cognition directly. Meanwhile, an embedded PVT is a task design to evaluate some sort of cognition (e.g., memory) by using traditional neuropsychological tests (e.g., Trail Making Test) and performance validity. Research suggests that undergraduate college students are not always performing to the best of their abilities when completing a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. In fact, in one study where an undergraduate college sample was given three PVTs, it was reported that 56% of the participants failed at least one PVT in their first session and 31% in their second session. Research has also shown that speaking multiple languages can influence cognition. The purpose of this study was to identify in three credible language groups of college students what PVTs does bilingualism influence higher failure rates. It was predicted that bilingual college students would significantly demonstrate higher PVTs failure rates compared to monolingual college students.

The sample consisted of 70 English first language monolinguals (EFLM), 33 English first language bilinguals (EFLB), and 68 English second language bilinguals (ESLB) that were psychologically and neurologically healthy. All participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery in English. The Rey-Osterrith complex figure copy test, Comalli Stroop part A, B, and C, Trail Making Test part A and B, Symbol Digit Modalities Test written and oral parts, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) letter fluency, and Finger Tapping Test were the tasks used as embedded PVTs to evaluate failure rates in our sample. Moreover, all participants were credible (i.e., they did not fail two or more PVTs). PVT cutoff scores were selected for each embedded PVT from previous literature. Chi-square analysis were used to evaluate failure rates between language groups on each PVT.

We found no significant failure rate differences between language groups on any of the PVTs. However, while no significant group differences were found, on the COWAT letter fluency results revealed higher failure rates between the three language groups (i.e., 13% EFLM, 24% EFLB, and 22% ESLB) compared to other PVTs.

Our data suggested no significant failure rate differences between language groups. It has been suggested in previous studies that linguistic factors impact PVT performance and test interpretation. On the COWAT letter fluency task, it is possible that language is driving higher failure rates between bilingual speakers, even though we found no significant failure rates or performance differences between the three language groups. Future studies should examine language groups and other cultural variables (e.g., time perspective) to determine what may be driving high failure rates on the COWAT letter fluency task in credible participants.