Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:12:29.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection of inadequate effort on the California Verbal Learning Test-Second edition: Forced choice recognition and critical item analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2006

JAMES C. ROOT ,
REUBEN N. ROBBINS ,
LUKE CHANG  and
WILFRED G. VAN GORP
JAMES C. ROOT
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Manhattan, New York
REUBEN N. ROBBINS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York
LUKE CHANG
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research, Manhattan, New York
WILFRED G. VAN GORP
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, Manhattan, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) and the Critical Item Analysis (CIA) indices of the California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) have been identified by the CVLT-II test developers as potentially useful, brief screening indicators of effort in neuropsychological assessment. This retrospective study analyzes performance on these measures in three groups: (1) clinically referred individuals; (2) forensically referred individuals not suspected of inadequate effort; and (3) forensically referred individuals whose performance on freestanding tests of effort suggested inadequate effort. Performances on FCR were analyzed for their relation to actual memory impairment and with regard to concrete and abstract distractor endorsement. FCR and CIA performances were analyzed for agreement with formal tests of inadequate effort and their test characteristics. Incremental validity was assessed by hierarchical logistic regression with previously identified indices for detection of inadequate effort on the CVLT. Results indicate that (1) FCR and CIA performances are not related to decreased memory performance; (2) FCR and CIA indices exhibit higher specificity and lower sensitivity, with higher positive predictive value than negative predictive value; and (3) FCR and CIA indices exhibit modest incremental validity with previously identified indices. Implications for use of FCR and CIA indices in inadequate effort detection are discussed (JINS, 2006, 12, 688–696.)

Keywords

MalingeringNeuropsychological testsMemoryForensicAssessmentNeuropsychology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , September 2006 , pp. 688 - 696
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnett, P.A., Hammeke, T.A., & Schwartz, L. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative performance on Rey's 15-Item Test in neurological patients and dissimulators. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashendorf, L., O'Bryant, S.E., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2003). Specificity of malingering detection strategies in older adults using the CVLT and WCST. Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. & McCaffrey, R.J. (2006). Coverage of the Test of Memory Malingering, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Word Memory Test on the Internet: Is test security threatened? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 121–126.Google Scholar
Binder, L.M. (1993). Assessment of malingering after mild head trauma with the Portland Digit Recognition Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coleman, R.D., Rapport, L.J., Millis, S.R., Ricker, J.H., & Farchione, T.J. (1998). Effects of coaching on detection of malingering on the California Verbal Learning Test. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 201–210.Google Scholar
Conder, R., Allen, L., & Cox, D. (1992). Computerized assessment of response bias test manual. Durham, NC: Cognisyst.
Connor, D.J., Drake, A.I., Bondi, M.W., & Delis, D.C. (1997). Detection of feigned cognitive impairments in patients with a history of mild to severe closed head injury. Paper presented at the American Academy of Neurology, Boston.
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test-2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Frederick, R.I. (1997). Validity indicator profile manual. Minnetonka, MN: NCS Assessments.
Frederick, R.I., Sarfaty, S.D., Johnston, J.D., & Powel, J. (1994). Validation of a detector of response bias on a forced-choice test of nonverbal ability. Neuropsychology, 8, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, R.O., Rohling, M.L., Green, P., & Ford, W. (2004). A comparison of WMT, CARB, and TOMM failure rates in non-head injury disability claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P., Allen, L.M., & Astner, K. (1996). The Word Memory Test: A user's guide to the oral and computer administered forms, US version 1.1. Durham, NC: Cognisyst.
Greve, K.W. & Bianchini, K.J. (2004). Setting empirical cut-offs on psychometric indicators of negative response bias: A methodological commentary with recommendations. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, R.K., Smith, H.H., Lehman, R.A., & Vogt, A.T. (1978). Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 892–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2003). Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 410–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G.P., Loring, D.W., & Martin, R.C. (1992). Rey's 15-item visual memory test for the detection of malingering: Normative observations on patients with neurological disorders. Psychological Assessment, 4, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millis, S.R., Putnam, S.H., Adams, K.M., & Ricker, J.H. (1995). The California Verbal Learning Test in the detection of incomplete effort in neuropsychological evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 7, 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E.M., & Condit, D.C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 1094–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, B.A. & Donders, J. (2004). Predictors of invalid neuropsychological test performance after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 18, 975–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, L.M., Tombaugh, T.N., Gansler, D.A., & Moczynski, N.P. (1998). Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Psychological Assessment, 10, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, B., Sands, S.A., & van Gorp, W.G. (2000). Have we forgotten the base rate problem? Methodological issues in the detection of distortion. Archives Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston, P., Altman, D.G., & Sauerbrei, W. (2006). Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, M.A., Drake, E.B., Glass, A., Marcotte, D., & van Gorp, W.G. (2002). Trying to beat the system: Misuse of the Internet to assist in avoiding the detection of psychological symptom dissimulation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schretlen, D.J. (1988). The use of psychological tests to identify malingered symptoms of mental disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, J.J., Wolfe, P., Sattlberger, E., Numan, B., Rosenfeld, J.P., Clingerman, S., & Nies, K.J. (2000). Further investigation of traumatic brain injury versus insufficient effort with the California Verbal Learning Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombaugh, T.N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering. Toronto, ON: Multi Health Systems.
Tombaugh, T.N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueblood, W. & Schmidt, M. (1993). Malingering and other validity considerations in the neuropsychological evaluation of mild head injury. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 15(4), 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallabhajosula, B. & van Gorp, W.G. (2001). Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 207–215.Google Scholar