Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:This study investigated a combination of eight embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) derived from commonly administered neuropsychological tests to optimize sensitivity/specificity for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate what combination of these common embedded PVTs that have the most robust predictive power for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance in a single diverse clinical sample. METHOD:Eight previously validated memory- and nonmemory-based embedded PVTs were examined among 231 patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. Patients were classified into valid/invalid groups based on four independent criterion PVTs. Embedded PVT accuracy was assessed using standard and stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS:Three PVTs, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised Recognition Discrimination (BVMT-R-RD), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Forced Choice, and WAIS-IV Digit Span Age Corrected Scaled Score, predicted 45.5% of the variance in validity group membership. BVMT-RD independently accounted for 32% of the variance in prediction of independent, criterion-defined validity group membership. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated the incremental predictive power of multiple embedded PVTs derived from common neuropsychological measures in detecting invalid test performance and those measures accounting for the greatest portion of the variance. These results provide guidance for evaluating the most fruitful embedded PVTs and proof of concept to better guide selection of embedded validity indices. Further, this offers clinicians an efficient, empirically derived approach to assessing performance validity when time restraints potentially limit the use of freestanding PVTs.

INTRODUCTION:Although dementia prevalence differs by race, it remains unclear whether cognition and neuropsychiatric symptom severity differ between Black and White individuals with dementia. METHODS:Using National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) data, we evaluated dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black and White participants and compared their clinicodemographic characteristics. We examined race differences in cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and functional abilities in participants with dementia using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS:We included 5,700 Black and 31,225 White participants across 39 Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers. Of these, 1,528 (27%) Black and 11,267 (36%) White participants had dementia diagnoses. Despite having lower dementia prevalence, risk factors were more prevalent among Black participants. Black participants with dementia showed greater cognitive deficits, neuropsychiatric symptoms/severity, and functional dependence. DISCUSSION:Despite lower dementia prevalence, Black participants with dementia had more dementia risk factors, as well as greater cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric symptom severity than White participants.

Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) are key components of neuropsychological evaluations. However, most are memory-based and may be less useful in the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four non-memory-based validity indices derived from processing speed and executive functioning measures commonly included in ADHD evaluations, namely Verbal Fluency (VF) and the Trail Making Test (TMT), were cross-validated using the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall and Recall/Recognition as memory-based comparison measures. This consecutive case series included data from 416 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Validity classifications were established, with ≤1 PVT failure of five independent criterion PVTs as indicative of valid performance (374 valid performers/42 invalid performers). Among the statistically significant validity indicators, TMT-A and TMT-B T-scores (AUCs = .707-.723) had acceptable classification accuracy ranges and sensitivities ranging from 29%-36% (≥89% specificity). RFIT Recall/Recognition produced similar results as TMT-B T-score with 42% sensitivity/90% specificity, but with lower classification accuracy. In evaluating adult ADHD, VF and TMT embedded PVTs demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity values to those found in other clinical populations but necessitated alternate cut-scores. Results also support use of RFIT Recall/Recognition over the standard RFIT Recall as a PVT for adult ADHD evaluations.

This study investigated the utility of four Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT) indices, including the raw score and T score for the word reading (WR) and color naming (CN) trials, as embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) within a sample referred for evaluation of suspected or known attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Data were analyzed from a final sample of 317 patients consecutively referred for ADHD evaluation, which was divided into groups with invalid (n = 43; 14%) and valid neuropsychological test performance (n = 274; 86%). A subset of the valid group with confirmed ADHD diagnoses (n = 226; 71%) were also analyzed separately. Classification accuracy for the overall valid sample was in the acceptable range (AUCs = .757-.794), with optimal cut scores of WR raw ≤75 (54% sensitivity/90% specificity), WR T score ≤ 28 (54% sensitivity/88% specificity), CN raw ≤57 (42% sensitivity/90% specificity), and CN T score ≤ 30 (40% sensitivity/90% specificity). Classification accuracy was also in the acceptable range for the ADHD-confirmed subgroup (AUCs = .750-.790), with optimal cut scores of WR Raw ≤ 75 (54% sensitivity/89% specificity), WR T score ≤ 28 (54% sensitivity/87% specificity), CN Raw ≤ 57 (42% sensitivity/90% specificity), and CN T score ≤ 30 (40% sensitivity/90% specificity). These findings indicate that embedded PVTs derived from the SCWT, particularly those derived from the WR trial, are effective measures for determining validity status in samples with suspected or confirmed ADHD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

OBJECTIVE:The aim was to set syndrome stage-specific (eg, cognitively unimpaired, severe dementia) metrics for functional change. METHODS:We selected 18,097 individuals who participated in 2 National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center visits between June 2005 and May 2020, with completed collateral rating of functioning on activities of daily living assessed by the Functional Activities Questionnaire.Both distribution-based (ie, regression-based reliable change indices) and anchor-based (ie, typical change associated with advancing a syndromal stage for clinically meaningful difference) methods were applied for individuals classified as: unimpaired cognition, mild cognitive impairment, mild dementia, moderate dementia, or severe dementia. RESULTS:There were marked differences in the distribution of functional ratings depending on their syndromal stage. There were also differences in the functional change associated with advancing across different syndromal stages. These informed stage-specific metrics for reliable change indices and clinically meaningful differences. CONCLUSIONS:Our indices provide a hitherto unavailable method that allows clinicians to determine whether observed functional change is reliable or meaningful based on syndromal stage.

The Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) is a collateral-report measure of difficulties in activities of daily living. Despite its widespread use, psychometric analyses have been limited in scope, piecemeal across samples, and limited primarily to classical test theory. This article consolidated and expanded psychometric analyses using tools from generalizability and item response theories among 27,916 individuals from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center database who completed the FAQ. Reliability was evaluated with internal consistency, test-retest, and generalizability analyses. Validity was assessed via convergence with neurocognitive measures, classification accuracy with impairment stage, and confirmatory factor and item response theory analyses. Demographics did not impact scores and there was strong evidence for reliability (0.52-0.95), though coefficients were attenuated when restricted in range to diagnostic groups (e.g., normal cognition). There were strong correlations with neurocognitive measures (rs: -.30 to -.59), strong classification accuracy (areas under the curve: .81-.99), and a single-factor model had excellent fit. All items evidenced strong item response theory discrimination and provided significant information regarding functional disability, albeit within a relatively restricted range. The FAQ is a reliable and valid measure of activities of daily living concerns for use in clinical/research settings. It best assesses mild levels of functional difficulty, which is helpful in distinguishing normal cognition from mild cognitive impairment and dementia.

This study cross-validated the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample and examined its accuracy for identifying invalid neuropsychological performance using a known-groups design. Cross-sectional data from 129 clinical patients who completed the MSVT were examined. Validity groups were established using six, independent criterion performance validity tests, which yielded 98 patients in the valid group and 31 in the invalid group. All MSVT subtest scores were significantly lower in the invalid group (η

OBJECTIVE:Primary angiitis of the central nervous system (PACNS) is a rare and devastating form of vasculitis that destroys the vessels of the brain and spinal cord, resulting in progressive and debilitating neurologic symptoms. The objective of the present study was to detail the diagnostic process of a case of a patient with PACNS who suffered from six intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs). METHOD/METHODS:The patient was an African American woman with a history of recurrent ICHs of unclear etiology who received serial neuropsychological evaluations over the course of a 5-year period. Two comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations are included, as well as an overview of her clinical course, including differential diagnostic considerations and treatment planning. RESULTS:Neuropsychological assessment revealed marked deficits in visuospatial abilities and processing speed associated with her underlying neuropathology. Integrated review of her medical records indicated a probable diagnosis of PACNS as the likely etiology of her recurrent ICHs. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the importance of differential diagnosis of low base-rate conditions, functional neuroanatomy and neurobehavioral phenomenology, serial assessment, and cognitive reserve in clinical neuropsychological practice.

OBJECTIVE:This study cross-validated the word choice test (WCT) in a diverse neuropsychiatric sample and examined the effect of increasing verbal memory impairment severity on WCT performance. METHOD/METHODS:Data from 147 clinically referred patients (113 valid/34 invalid) who completed the WCT, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and four independent criterion PVTs were analyzed. RAVLT memory impairment bands used were: ≥37T (normal memory); 30T-36T (below average scores/mild impairment); and ≤29T (extremely low scores/severe impairment). RESULTS:WCT and RAVLT were moderately correlated. The invalid group had significantly worse performance on the WCT and RAVLT. For the overall sample, the WCT yielded an area under the curve (AUC) = .79, with 62% sensitivity/93% specificity at a cut-score of ≤41. When the sample was subdivided by memory impairment severity, the severe impairment group had significantly lower WCT scores than the normal group. Moreover, the WCT retained moderate classification accuracy among the normal memory (AUC = .85) and mild memory impairment (AUC = .76) groups, with sensitivities of 65% and 62% (≥91% specificity) at their respective optimal cut-scores of ≤44 and ≤42. In contrast, the WCT had low classification accuracy among those with severe memory impairment (AUC = .66), with only 15% sensitivity/95% specificity at the optimal cut-score of ≤30. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The WCT is generally useful for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance, although, its classification accuracy was diminished among patients with severe memory impairment. Therefore, while the WCT remains a viable option for performance validity assessment, neuropsychologists should carefully consider its use when this level of severe memory impairment is known or suspected.

Previous studies support using two abbreviated tests of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), including (a) Trial 1 (T1) and (b) the number of errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1e10), as performance validity tests (PVTs). In this study, we examined the independent and aggregated predictive utility of TOMM T1 and T1e10 for identifying invalid neuropsychological test performance across two clinical samples. We employed cross-sectional research to examine two independent and demographically diverse mixed samples of military veterans and civilians (VA = 108; academic medical center = 234) of patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluations. We determined validity groups by patient performance on four independent criterion PVTs. We established concordances between passing/failing the TOMM T1e10 and T1, followed by logistic regression to determine individual and aggregated accuracy of T1e10 and T1 for predicting validity group membership. Concordance between passing T1e10 and T1 was high, as was overall validity (87-98%) across samples. By contrast, T1e10 failure was more highly concordant with T1 failure (69-77%) than with overall invalidity status (59-60%) per criterion PVTs, whereas T1 failure was more highly concordant with invalidity status (72-88%) per criterion PVTs. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated similar results, with T1 accounting for more variance than T1e10. However, combining T1e10 and T1 accounted for the most variance of any model, with T1e10 and T1 each emerging as significant predictors. TOMM T1 and, to a lesser extent, T1e10 were significant predictors of independent criterion-derived validity status across two distinct clinical samples, but they did not offer improved classification accuracy when aggregated.