Forced-choice performance validity tests are routinely used for the detection of feigned cognitive impairment. The drift diffusion model deconstructs performance into distinct cognitive processes using accuracy and response time measures. It thereby offers a unique approach for gaining insight into examinees’ speed-accuracy trade-offs and the cognitive processes that underlie their performance. The current study is the first to perform such analyses using a well-established forced-choice performance validity test. To achieve this aim, archival data of healthy participants, either simulating cognitive impairment in the Word Memory Test or performing it to the best of their ability, were analyzed using the EZ-diffusion model (N = 198). The groups differed in the three model parameters, with drift rate emerging as the best predictor of group membership. These findings provide initial evidence for the usefulness of the drift diffusion model in clarifying the cognitive processes underlying feigned cognitive impairment and encourage further research.
AlexandrowiczR. W. (2018). The diffusion model visualizer: An interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters. Psychological Research, 84(4), 1157-1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1112-6
2.
ArnoldN. R.BröderA.BayenU. J. (2015). Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods. Psychological Research, 79(5), 882-898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0608-y
3.
AyresP.PaasF. (2012). Cognitive load theory: New directions and challenges. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 827-832. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2882
4.
BashemJ. R.RapportL. J.MillerJ. B.HanksR. A.AxelrodB. N.MillisS. R. (2014). Comparisons of five performance validity indices in bona fide and simulated traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(5), 851-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.927927
5.
BiglerE. D. (2012). Symptom validity testing, effort, and neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(4), 632-642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000252
6.
BooneK. B. (2013). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology. Guilford Press.
7.
BrawY. (in press). Detection of feigned cognitive impairment: Utility of response time measurements in the performance validity subtests of the Word Memory Test.
8.
CastielM.AldermanN.JenkinsK.KnightC.BurgessP. (2012). Use of the Multiple Errands Test–Simplified Version in the assessment of suboptimal effort. Neuropsychology Rehabilitation, 22(5), 734-751. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2012.686884
9.
Cohen-GilbertJ. E.KillgoreW. D. S.WhiteC. N.SchwabZ. J.CrowleyD. J.CovellM. J.SneiderJ. T.SilveriM. M. (2014). Differential influence of safe versus threatening facial expressions on decision-making during an inhibitory control task in adolescence and adulthood. Developmental Science, 17(2), 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12123
10.
CottinghamM. E.VictorT. L.BooneK. B.ZieglerE. A.ZellerM. (2014). Apparent effect of type of compensation seeking (disability versus litigation) on Performance Validity Test Scores may be due to other factors. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(6), 1030-1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.951397
DutilhG.AnnisJ.BrownS. D.CasseyP.EvansN. J.GrasmanR. P. P. P.HawkinsG. E.HeathcoteA.HolmesW. R.KrypotosA.-M.KupitzC. N.LeiteF. P.LercheV.LinY.-S.LoganG. D.PalmeriT. J.StarnsJ. J.TruebloodJ. S.van MaanenL.. . . DonkinC. (2018). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1051-1069. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1417-2
13.
DymowskiA.OwensJ. A.PonsfordJ.WillmottC. (2015). Speed of processing and strategic control of attention after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(10), 1024-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2015.1074663
14.
EglitG. M. L.LynchJ. K.McCaffreyR. J. (2017). Not all performance validity tests are created equal: The role of recollection and familiarity in the Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 39(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2016.1210573
15.
ElbaumT.GolanL.LupoT.WagnerM.BrawY. (2019). Establishing supplementary response time validity indicators in the Word Memory Test (WMT) and directions for future research. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1555161
16.
ForstmannB. U.RatcliffR.WagenmakersE. (2016). Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience: Advantages, applications, and extensions. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 641-666. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
17.
GreenP. (2003). Word Memory Test for Windows: User’s manual and program. Green’s Publishing.
18.
GreenP. (2005). Green’s word memory test for Microsoft windows: User’s manual (Rev. ed.). Green’s Publications.
19.
GreenP.AllenL.AstnerK. (1996). The Word Memory Test: A user’s guide to the oral and computer-administered forms, US Version 1.1. CogniSyst.
20.
GreenbergL. (2016). The impact of concussion on processing speed and individual reaction time components [Master’s thesis, The Pennsylvania State University]. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/7s75dc36z
21.
HegedishO.HoofienD. (2013). Detection of malingered neurocognitive dysfunction among patients with acquired brain injuries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000154
22.
HeilbronnerR. L.SweetJ. J.MorganJ. E.LarrabeeG. J.MillisS. R. (2009). American academy of clinical neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093-1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903155063
23.
HeitzR. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00150
Huang-PollockC.RatcliffR.McKoonG.ShapiroZ.WeigardA.Galloway-LongH. (2017). Using the diffusion model to explain cognitive deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0151-y
26.
JepmaM.WagenmakersE. J.NieuwenhuisS. (2012). Temporal expectation and information processing: A model-based analysis. Cognition, 122(3), 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.014
27.
KanserR. J.RapportL. J.BashemJ. R.BillingsN. M.RobinA.AxelrodB. N.MillerJ. B. (2017). Strategies of successful and unsuccessful simulators coached to feign traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(3), 644-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1278040
28.
KanserR. J.RapportL. J.BashemJ. R.HanksR. A. (2018). Detecting malingering in traumatic brain injury: Combining response time with performance validity test accuracy. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(1), 90-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1440006
29.
KaralunasS. L.GeurtsH. M.KonradK.BenderS.NiggJ. T. (2014). Annual research review: Reaction time variability in ADHD and autism spectrum disorders: Measurement and mechanisms of a proposed trans-diagnostic phenotype. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 685-710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12217
30.
KaralunasS. L.Huang-PollockC. (2013). Integrating impairments in reaction time and executive function using a diffusion model framework. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 837-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9715-2
31.
KimM. S.BooneK. B.VictorT.MarionS. D.AmanoS.CottinghamM. E.ZieglerE. A.ZellerM. A. (2010). The Warrington Recognition Memory Test for Words as a measure of response bias: Total score and response time cutoffs developed on “real world” credible and noncredible subjects. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acp088
32.
KoshelevaE.SpadoniA. D.StrigoI. A.BuchsbaumM. S.SimmonsA. N. (2016). Faking bad: The neural correlates of feigning memory impairment. Neuropsychology, 30(3), 377-384. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000251
33.
LarrabeeG. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(4), 625-630. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000240
34.
LauL.BassoM. R.EstevisE.MillerA.WhitesideD. M.CombsD.ArentsenT. J. (2017). Detecting coached neuropsychological dysfunction: A simulation experiment regarding mild traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(8), 1412-1431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1318954
35.
LeightonA.WeinbornM.MayberyM. (2014). Bridging the gap between neurocognitive processing theory and performance validity assessment among the cognitively impaired: A review and methodological approach. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(9), 873-886. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771400085X
36.
LercheV.VossA. (2018). Speed–accuracy manipulations and diffusion modeling: Lack of discriminant validity of the manipulation or of the parameter estimates?Behavior Research Methods, 50(6), 2568-2585. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1034-7
37.
LippaS. M. (2018). Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: A clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(3), 391-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146
38.
LupuT.ElbaumT.WagnerM.BrawY. (2018). Enhanced detection of feigned cognitive impairment using per item response time measurements in the Word Memory Test. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 5(6), 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1341410
39.
MartinP. K.SchroederR. W.OdlandA. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey of North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597
40.
McGuireC.CrawfordS.EvansJ. (2018). Effort testing in dementia assessment: A systematic review. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34(1), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy012
MyersonJ.MyersonJ.FerraroF. R.HaleS. (1992). General slowing in semantic priming and word recognition general slowing in semantic priming and word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 7(2), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.2.257
44.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
45.
PachellaR. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in human information processing research. In Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41-82). Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
PatrickS. D.RapportL. J.KanserR. J.HanksR. A.BashemJ. R. (2020). Performance validity assessment using response time on the Warrington Recognition Memory Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1716997
47.
PirroneA.DickinsonA.GomezR.StaffordT.MilneE. (2017). Understanding perceptual judgment in autism spectrum disorder using the drift diffusion model. Neuropsychology, 31(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000320
48.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873-922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420
51.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L.BrownS. D.McKoonG. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
52.
RatcliffR.ThaparA.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 408-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.11.002
53.
RatcliffR.ThaparA.McKoonG. (2006). Aging and individual differences in rapid two-choice decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(4), 626-635. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193973
54.
ReickerL. I. (2008). The ability of reaction time tests to detect simulation: An investigation of contextual effects and criterion scores. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(4), 419-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2008.02.003
55.
RogersR. (2018a). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In RogersR.BenderS. D. (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 18-41). Guilford Press.
56.
RogersR. (2018b). Researching response styles. In RogersR.BenderS. D. (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 592-614). Guilford Press.
57.
RogersR.BenderS. D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. Guilford Press.
58.
RogersR.GillardN. (2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In RosenfeldB.PenrodS. D. (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174-188). John Wiley.
59.
SchmiedekF.OberauerK.WilhelmO.SüßH. M.WittmannW. W. (2007). Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 414-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.414
60.
SchutteC.AxelrodB. N.MontoyaE. (2015). Making sure neuropsychological data are meaningful: Use of performance validity testing in medicolegal and clinical contexts. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(2), 100-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9225-3
SoperD. S. (2020). Significance of the difference between two correlations related calculator [Computer software]. http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
63.
SpaniolJ.MaddenD. J.VossA. (2006). A diffusion model analysis of adult age differences in episodic and semantic long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(1), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.101
64.
SuchotzkiK.VerschuereB.BockstaeleB.Van Ben-ShakharG.CrombezG. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000087
65.
TombaughT. N.ReesL.StormerP.HarrisonA. G.SmithA. (2007). The effects of mild and severe traumatic brain injury on speed of information processing as measured by the computerized tests of information processing (CTIP). Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.06.013
66.
TomerE.LupoT.GolanL.WagnerM.BrawY. (2018). Eye tracking as a mean to detect feigned cognitive impairment in the Word Memory Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1480483
67.
van RavenzwaaijD.DonkinC.VandekerckhoveJ. (2017). The EZ diffusion model provides a powerful test of simple empirical effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(2), 547-556. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1081-y
68.
VerschuereB.KöbisN. C.Bereby-MeyerY.RandD.ShalviS. (2018). Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 462-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.04.005
69.
VossA.NaglerM.LercheV. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385-402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218
70.
VrijA.EdwardK.BullR. (2001). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 899-909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277012
71.
VrijA.MannS. A.FisherR. P.LealS.MilneR.BullR. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y
72.
WagenmakersE.-J.Van Der MaasH. L. J.GrasmanR. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194023
73.
WalczykJ. J.SchwartzJ. P.CliftonR.AdamsB.WeiM. I. N.ZhaP. (2005). Lying person-to-person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 141-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x
74.
WhiteC. N.RatcliffR.VaseyM. W.McKoonG. (2010). Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.01.004
WillisonJ.TombaughT. N. (2006). Detecting simulation of attention deficits using reaction time tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.07.005
77.
YoungJ. C.RoperB. L.ArentsenT. J. (2016). Validity testing and neuropsychology practice in the VA healthcare system: Results from recent practitioner survey. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(4), 497-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1159730
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
