Relative Rates of Invalidity for the Test of Memory Malingering and the Dot Counting Test Among Spanish-Speaking Patients Residing in the USA

Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated performance validity in the understudied Romanian clinical population by exploring classification accuracies of the Dot Counting Test (DCT) and the first Romanian performance validity test (PVT) (Memory of Objects and Digits and Evaluation of Memory Malingering/MODEMM) in a heterogeneous clinical sample.

METHODS

We evaluated 54 outpatients (26 females; MAge = 62.02; SDAge = 12.3; MEducation = 2.41, SDEducation = 2.82) with the Test of Memory Malingering 1 (TOMM-1), Rey Fifteen Items Test (Rey-15) (free recall and recognition trials), DCT, MODEMM, and MMSE/MoCA as part of their neuropsychological assessment. Accuracy parameters and base failure rates were computed for the DCT and MODEMM indicators against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15. Two patient groups were constructed according to psychometrically defined credible/noncredible performance (i.e., pass/fail both TOMM-1 and Rey-15).

RESULTS

Similar to other cultures, a cutoff of ≥18 on the DCT E score produced the best combination between sensitivity (0.50-0.57) and specificity (≥0.90). MODEMM indicators based on recognition accuracy, inconsistencies, and inclusion false positives generated 0.75-0.86 sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities. Multivariable models of MODEMM indicators reached perfect sensitivities at ≥0.90 specificities against two PVTs. Patients who failed the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 were significantly more likely to fail the DCT and MODEMM than patients who passed both PVTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results offer proof of concept for the DCT's cross-cultural validity and the applicability of the MODEMM on Romanian clinical examinees, further recommending the use of heterogeneous validity indicators in clinical assessments.

Examining the cross-cultural validity of the test of memory malingering and the Rey 15-item test

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate the cross-cultural validity of two freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs), the Test of Memory Malingering - Trial 1 (TOMM-1) and the Rey Fifteen Item Test (Rey-15) in Romanian-speaking patients.

METHODS

The TOMM-1 and Rey-15 free recall (FR) and the combination score incorporating the recognition trial (COMB) were administered to a mixed clinical sample of 61 adults referred for cognitive evaluation, 24 of whom had external incentives to appear impaired. Average scores on PVTs were compared between the two groups. Classification accuracies were computed using one PVT against another.

RESULTS

Patients with identifiable external incentives to appear impaired produced significantly lower scores and more errors on validity indicators. The largest effect sizes emerged on TOMM-1 (Cohen's d = 1.00-1.19). TOMM-1 was a significant predictor of the Rey-15 COMB ≤20 (AUC = .80; .38 sensitivity; .89 specificity at a cutoff of ≤39). Similarly, both Rey-15 indicators were significant predictors of TOMM-1 at ≤39 as the criterion (AUCs = .73-.76; .33 sensitivity; .89-.90 specificity).

CONCLUSION

Results offer a proof of concept for the cross-cultural validity of the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian clinical sample.

Performance Validity Test Failure in the Clinical Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Rates

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are used to measure the validity of the obtained neuropsychological test data. However, when an individual fails a PVT, the likelihood that failure truly reflects invalid performance (i.e., the positive predictive value) depends on the base rate in the context in which the assessment takes place. Therefore, accurate base rate information is needed to guide interpretation of PVT performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the base rate of PVT failure in the clinical population (PROSPERO number: CRD42020164128). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched to identify articles published up to November 5, 2021. Main eligibility criteria were a clinical evaluation context and utilization of stand-alone and well-validated PVTs. Of the 457 articles scrutinized for eligibility, 47 were selected for systematic review and meta-analyses. Pooled base rate of PVT failure for all included studies was 16%, 95% CI [14, 19]. High heterogeneity existed among these studies (Cochran's Q = 697.97, p < .001; I2 = 91%; τ2 = 0.08). Subgroup analysis indicated that pooled PVT failure rates varied across clinical context, presence of external incentives, clinical diagnosis, and utilized PVT. Our findings can be used for calculating clinically applied statistics (i.e., positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios) to increase the diagnostic accuracy of performance validity determination in clinical evaluation. Future research is necessary with more detailed recruitment procedures and sample descriptions to further improve the accuracy of the base rate of PVT failure in clinical practice.

A case report and literature review of cognitive malingering and psychopathology

Malingering of cognitive difficulties constitutes a major issue in psychiatric forensic settings. Here, we present a selective literature review related to the topic of cognitive malingering, psychopathology and their possible connections. Furthermore, we report a single case study of a 60-year-old man with a long and ongoing judicial history who exhibits a suspicious multi-domain neurocognitive disorder with significant reduction of autonomy in daily living, alongside a longtime history of depressive symptoms. Building on this, we suggest the importance of evaluating malingering conditions through both psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment tools. More specifically, the use of Performance Validity Tests (PVTs)-commonly but not quite correctly considered as tests of "malingering"-alongside the collection of clinical history and the use of routine psychometric testing, seems to be crucial in order to detect discrepancies between self-reported patient's symptoms, embedded validity indicators and psychometric results.

Cross-Cultural Performance Validity Testing: Managing False Positives in Examinees with Limited English Proficiency

Base rates of failure (BR_Fail) on performance validity tests (PVTs) were examined in university students with limited English proficiency (LEP). BR_Fail was calculated for several free-standing and embedded PVTs. All free-standing PVTs and certain embedded indicators were robust to LEP. However, LEP was associated with unacceptably high BR_Fail (20-50%) on several embedded PVTs with high levels of verbal mediation (even multivariate models of PVT could not contain BR_Fail). In conclusion, failing free-standing/dedicated PVTs cannot be attributed to LEP. However, the elevated BR_Fail on several embedded PVTs in university students suggest an unacceptably high overall risk of false positives associated with LEP.