The Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Recognition Discrimination (RD) index has emerged as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). However, there do not appear to be any studies that have examined its utility in Spanish-speaking samples. This pilot study examined the classification accuracy of the BVMT-R RD for detecting performance invalidity in a Spanish-speaking forensic sample.

This cross-sectional study utilized a sample of 89 Spanish speakers that were administered the BVMT-R during an outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Out of the 89 Spanish speakers, 43 were subjects in litigation, 32 were neurological patients evaluated for clinical purposes, and 14 were healthy controls. The sample was 67% male/33% female, 53% South American, 33% Caribbean (Dominican, Puerto Rican, Cuban), 10% Central American, 3% North American (Mexican), and 1% Spanish, with a mean age of 44.2 years (SD = 14.2; range = 20-78) and mean education of 11 years (SD = 3.7; range = 0-20). Test administration for each patient was completed in Spanish by a fluent, Spanish-speaking examiner. In total, 64/89 (72%) were classified as valid and 25/89 (28%) as invalid based on performance across the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), at least one additional PVT (Rey-15 item memory test; Rey Dot Counting Test; Reliable Digit Span; WHO-AVLT recognition trial) and objective diagnostic criteria identifying invalid performance. Analyses included three univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA), with the groups (healthy vs neurological vs litigation) as independent variables and performance on BVMT-RD as the dependent variable.

Statistically significant differences among the groups were found F(2,86)=8.32, p < .001). Post-hoc analysis (Scheffe test) showed the mean of the litigation group to be significantly lower than the means of the other two groups (healthy and neurological), which showed no difference between them. An ANOVA with validity groups as the fixed factor and BVMT-R RD index as the dependent variable was significant F(1,85)= 21.02, p <.001). Results of a ROC curve analysis yielded statistically significant AUC (.794). The optimal cut-score was BVMT-R RD < 5 (48% sensitivity/88% specificity).

Results of the BVMT-R RD index in this Spanish-speaking population differed by subgroup, with worse performance seen in individuals involved in litigation, compared to those who were not (healthy and neurological). Notably, the BVMT-R RD index significantly differentiated validity groups, maintaining adequate sensitivity and good specificity. Overall, results demonstrate promise for BVMT-RD as a PVT for Spanish-speaking populations.

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.

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are included in neuropsychological testing to ensure examinees are performing to the best of their abilities. There are two types of PVTs: embedded and free standing. Embedded PVTs are tests that are derived from standard neuropsychological tests of various cognitive domains. Freestanding PVTs are tests that are designed with the intention of being a PVT. Research studies show that undergraduate samples do not always performed to the best of their abilities. The purpose of this study was to cross-validate previous research on the topic of performance validity in a college sample. It was predicted that the non-credible group would demonstrate higher failure rates on embedded PVTs compared to the credible group.

The sample consisted of 198 neurologically and psychologically healthy undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.69 (SD = 2.11). Participants were broken into two groups: non-credible (i.e., participants that failed two or more PVTs) and credible (i.e., participants that did not failed two or more PVTs). The Rey-Osterrith copy test, Comalli Stroop part A (CSA), B (CSB), and C (CSC), Trail Making Test part A and B, Symbol Digit Modalities Test written (SDMT-W) and oral (SDMT-O) parts, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) letter fluency, and Finger Tapping Test were used to evaluate failure rates in our sample. PVT cutoff scores were use from previously validated in the literature. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate failure rates between the groups.

Chi-square analysis revealed significant failure rate differences between groups on several PVTs. Results revealed that 15% of the non-credible group failed the CSA compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=14.77, p=.000. Meanwhile, 26% of the non-credible group failed the CSB compared to 2% of the credible group, X2=24.72, p=.000. Furthermore, results showed that 11% of the non-credible group failed the CSC compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=13.05, p=.000.Next, 48% of the non-credible group failed the Trail Making Test part A compared to 8% of the credible group, X2=31.61, p=.000. We also found that 15% of the non-credible group failed the SDMT-W part compared to 1% of the credible group,X2=19.18, p=.000. Meanwhile, on the SDMT-O part 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=25.52, p =.000. On the COWAT letter fluency task 74% of the non-credible group failed compared to 19% of the credible group, X2=36.90, p=.000. Finally, results revealed on the Finger Tapping Test 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 3% of the credible group, X2=10.01, p=.002.

As expected, the non-credible participants demonstrated significantly higher PVT failure rates compared to credible participants. A possible explanation driving higher failure rates in our sample can be due to cultural variables (e.g., bilingualism). It was suggested by researchers that linguistic factors may be impacting higher PVT failure rates and developing a false-positive error. Future research using undergraduate samples need to identify which PVT’s are being impacted by linguist factors.

Data from neurocognitive assessments may not be accurate in the context of factors impacting validity, such as disengagement, unmotivated responding, or intentional underperformance. Performance validity tests (PVTs) were developed to address these phenomena and assess underperformance on neurocognitive tests. However, PVTs can be burdensome, rely on cutoff scores that reduce information, do not examine potential variations in task engagement across a battery, and are typically not well-suited to acquisition of large cognitive datasets. Here we describe the development of novel performance validity measures that could address some of these limitations by leveraging psychometric concepts using data embedded within the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PennCNB).

We first developed these validity measures using simulations of invalid response patterns with parameters drawn from real data. Next, we examined their application in two large, independent samples: 1) children and adolescents from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (n = 9498); and 2) adult servicemembers from the Marine Resiliency Study-II (n = 1444).

Our performance validity metrics detected patterns of invalid responding in simulated data, even at subtle levels. Furthermore, a combination of these metrics significantly predicted previously established validity rules for these tests in both developmental and adult datasets. Moreover, most clinical diagnostic groups did not show reduced validity estimates.

These results provide proof-of-concept evidence for multivariate, data-driven performance validity metrics. These metrics offer a novel method for determining the performance validity for individual neurocognitive tests that is scalable, applicable across different tests, less burdensome, and dimensional. However, more research is needed into their application.

No significant relationships.

No significant relationships.

The diagnosis ‘acoustic shock’ has been made increasingly in the health care industry in recent years. This paper aims to question the validity of acoustic shock as an organic pathological entity.

The experiences of 16 individuals diagnosed as having acoustic shock, within a medico-legal practice, are reviewed.

The commonest symptom was otalgia, followed by noise sensitivity, tinnitus, hearing disturbance and dizziness.

The presence of noise-limiting technology in the workplace, the variation in the nature of the acoustic incident involved (ranging from a shriek, through feedback noise, to a male voice), and the marked variation in the time of symptom onset (following the acoustic incident) all suggest that the condition termed acoustic shock is predominantly psychogenic. Cases of pseudohypacusis indicate that malingering is a factor in some cases. Clusters of acoustic shock events occurring in the same call centres suggest that hysteria may play a part. The condition is usually only seen when work-related issues are apparent.