Nonmemory Composite Embedded Performance Validity Formulas in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Failing Performance Validity Cutoffs on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) Is Specific, but Insensitive to Non-Credible Responding

This study was designed to examine alternative validity cutoffs on the Boston Naming Test (BNT).Archival data were collected from 206 adults assessed in a medicolegal setting following a motor vehicle collision. Classification accuracy was evaluated against three criterion PVTs.The first cutoff to achieve minimum specificity (.87-.88) was T ≤ 35, at .33-.45 sensitivity. T ≤ 33 improved specificity (.92-.93) at .24-.34 sensitivity. BNT validity cutoffs correctly classified 67-85% of the sample. Failing the BNT was unrelated to self-reported emotional distress. Although constrained by its low sensitivity, the BNT remains a useful embedded PVT.

Considerations regarding noncredible performance in the neuropsychological assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis: A case series

Determining the validity of data during clinical neuropsychological assessment is crucial for proper interpretation, and extensive literature has emphasized myriad methods of doing so in diverse samples. However, little research has considered noncredible presentation in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). PwMS often experience one or more factors known to impact validity of data, including major neurocognitive impairment, psychological distress/psychogenic interference, and secondary gain. This case series aimed to illustrate the potential relationships between these factors and performance validity testing in pwMS. Six cases from an IRB-approved database containing pwMS referred for neuropsychological assessment at a large, academic medical center involving at least one of the above-stated factors were identified. Backgrounds, neuropsychological test data, and clinical considerations for each were reviewed. Interestingly, no pwMS diagnosed with major neurocognitive impairment was found to have noncredible performance, nor was any patient with noncredible performance in the absence of notable psychological distress. Given the variability of noncredible performance and multiplicity of factors affecting performance validity in pwMS, clinicians are strongly encouraged to consider psychometrically appropriate methods for evaluating validity of cognitive data in pwMS. Additional research aiming to elucidate base rates of, mechanisms begetting, and methods for assessing noncredible performance in pwMS is imperative.