Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:This cross-sectional study examined accuracy of traditional Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) validity indicators, including immediate recognition (IR), delayed recognition (DR), and consistency (CNS), as well as a novel indicator derived from the mean performance on IR, DR, and CNS across verbal, visual, and combined learning and memory impairment bands. METHOD/METHODS:A sample of 180 adult outpatients was divided into valid (n = 150) and invalid (n = 30) groups based on results of four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal and visual learning and recall were classified as indicative of no impairment, mild impairment, or severe impairment based on performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, respectively. RESULTS:In general, individual MSVT subtests were able to accurately classify performance as valid or invalid, even in the context of severe learning and memory deficits. However, as verbal and visual memory impairment increased, optimal MSVT cut-scores diverged from manual-specified cutoffs such that DR and CNS required cut-scores to be lowered to maintain adequate specificity. By contrast, the newly proposed scoring algorithm generally showed more robust psychometric properties across the memory impairment bands. CONCLUSIONS:The mean performance index, a novel scoring algorithm using the mean of the three primary MSVT subtests, may be a more robust validity indicator than the individual MSVT subtests in the context of bona fide memory impairment.

OBJECTIVE:We assessed the effect of visual learning and recall impairment on Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) accuracy and response latency for Easy, Difficult, and Total Items. METHOD/METHODS:A sample of 163 adult patients administered the VSVT and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised were classified as valid (114/163) or invalid (49/163) groups via independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Classification accuracies for all VSVT indices were examined for the overall sample, and separately for subgroups based on visual memory functioning. RESULTS:In the overall sample, all indices produced acceptable classification accuracy (areas under the curve [AUCs] ≥ 0.79). When stratified by visual learning/recall impairment, accuracy indices yielded acceptable classification for both the unimpaired (AUCs ≥0.79) and impaired subsamples (AUCs ≥0.75). Latency indices had acceptable classification accuracy for the unimpaired subsample (AUCs ≥0.74), but accuracy and sensitivity dropped for the impaired sample (AUCs ≥0.67). CONCLUSIONS:VSVT accuracy and response latency yielded acceptable classification accuracies in the overall sample, and this effect was maintained in those with and without visual learning/recall impairment for the accuracy indices. Findings indicate that the VSVT is a psychometrically robust PVT with largely invariant cut-scores, even in the presence of bona fide visual learning/recall impairment.

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.

The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Forced Choice Recognition (FC) and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Recognition Discrimination Index (RD) are embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) assessing material-specific neuropsychological processes (i.e., verbal and visual memory, respectively). Prior research demonstrated the utility of these PVTs independently; however, no study has compared their diagnostic accuracy for identifying invalid performance relative to each other and in combination within a single sample. This cross-sectional study included an adult neuropsychiatric sample who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Validity groups were determined via independent criterion PVT performance, and consisted of 103 participants with valid and 25 with invalid neurocognitive performance. FC and RD were not significantly correlated (r = .154), yet both differed between validity groups (η_p