Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-4
Standalone Performance Validity Tests May Be Differentially Related to Measures of Working Memory,Processing Speed,and Verbal Memory in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis
Cognitive functioning may account for minimal levels (i.e., 5%–14%) of variance of performance validity test (PVT) scores in clinical examinees. The present study extended this research twofold: (a) by determining the variance cognitive functioning explains within three distinct PVTs (b) in a sample of patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Seventy-five pwMS (Mage = 48.50, 70.6% female, 80.9% White) completed the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), Word Choice Test (WCT), Dot Counting Test (DCT), and three objective measures of working memory, processing speed, and verbal memory as part of clinical neuropsychological assessment. Regression analyses in credible groups (ns ranged from 54 to 63) indicated that cognitive functioning explained 24% to 38% of the variance in logarithmically transformed PVT variables. Variance from cognitive testing differed across PVTs: verbal memory significantly influenced both VSVT and WCT scores; working memory influenced VSVT and DCT scores; and processing speed influenced DCT scores. The WCT appeared least related to cognitive functioning of the included PVTs. Alternative plausible explanations, including the apparent domain/modality specificity hypothesis of PVTs versus the potential sensitivity of these PVTs to neurocognitive dysfunction in pwMS were discussed. Continued psychometric investigations into factors affecting performance validity, especially in multiple sclerosis, are warranted.
AnK. Y.KaplounK.ErdodiL. A.AbeareC. A. (2017). Performance validity in undergraduate research participants: A comparison of failure rates across tests and cutoffs. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1217046
2.
ArchibaldC. J.FiskJ. D. (2000). Information processing efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(5), 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1076/1380-3395(200010)22:5;1-9; FT686
3.
ArnettP. A.StroberL. B. (2014). Multiple sclerosis and demyelinating disorders. In ParsonsM. W.HammekeT. A.SnyderP. J. (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology: A pocket handbook for assessment (3rd ed.). (pp. 287–312). American Psychological Association.
4.
BabikianT.BooneK. B.LuP.ArnoldG. (2006). Sensitivity and specificity of various digit span scores in the detection of suspect effort. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20(1), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040590947362
5.
BeattyW. (2004). RBANS analysis of verbal memory in multiple sclerosis. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(6), 825–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.12.001
6.
BenedictR. H. B.CookfairD.GavettR.GuntherM.MunschauerF.GargN.Weinstock-GuttmanB. (2006). Validity of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12(4), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617706060723
7.
BernsteinM. T.ReschZ. J.OvsiewG. P.SobleJ. R. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the Advanced Clinical Solutions Word Choice Test as a performance validity test. Neuropsychology Review, 31, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-020-09468-y
8.
BooneK. B. (2009). The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040802427803
9.
BooneK. B.LuP.HerzbergD. (2002). The dot counting test. Western Psychological Services.
10.
BowlerR.SudiaS.MerglerD.HarrisonR.ConeJ. (1992). Comparison of digit symbol and symbol digit modalities tests for assessing neurotoxic exposure. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6(1), 103–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854049208404123
11.
CernyB. M.RhoadsT.LeibS. I.JennetteK. J.BasurtoK. S.DurkinN. M.OvsiewG. P.ReschZ. J.SobleJ. R. (2021). Mean response latency indices on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test do not contribute meaningful predictive value over accuracy scores for detecting invalid performance. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 29, 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1872575
12.
CritchfieldE.SobleJ. R.MarceauxJ. C.BainK. M.Chase BaileyK.WebberT. A.Alex AlversonW.MesserlyJ.Andrés GonzálezD.O’RourkeJ. J. F. (2019). Cognitive impairment does not cause invalid performance: Analyzing performance patterns among cognitively unimpaired, impaired, and noncredible participants across six performance validity tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(6), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1508615
13.
Dandachi-FitzGeraldB.MerckelbachH. (2013). Feigning ≠ feigning a memory deficit: The medical symptom validity test as an example. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.025511
14.
DavisJ. J. (2018). Performance validity in older adults: Observed versus predicted false positive rates in relation to number of tests administered. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 40(10), 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2018.1472221
15.
DeanA. C.VictorT. L.BooneK. B.ArnoldG. (2008). The relationship of IQ to effort test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 705–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701440493
16.
DeanA. C.VictorT. L.BooneK. B.PhilpottL. M.HessR. A. (2009). Dementia and effort test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(1), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701819050
17.
DelisD. C.KramerJ. H.KaplanE.OberB. A. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test (2nd ed.). Psychological Corporation.
18.
DomenC. H.GreherM. R.HosokawaP. W.BarnesS. L.HoytB. D.WodushekT. R. (2020). Are established embedded performance validity test cut-offs generalizable to patients with multiple sclerosis?Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(5), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa016
19.
DondersJ. (2008). A confirmatory factor analysis of the California Verbal Learning Test—Second edition (CVLT-II) in the standardization sample. Assessment, 15(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107310926
20.
EconomouA.PapageorgiouS. G.KarageorgiouC.VassilopoulosD. (2007). Nonepisodic memory deficits in amnestic MCI. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 20(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e31804c6fe7
21.
ErdodiL. A. (2019). Aggregating validity indicators: The salience of domain specificity and the indeterminate range in multivariate models of performance validity assessment. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 26(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1384925
22.
ErdodiL. A. (2021). Five shades of gray: Conceptual and methodological issues around multivariate models of performance validity. Neurorehabilitation, 49(2), 179–213. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-218020
23.
ErdodiL. A.AbeareC. A. (2020). Stronger together: The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth edition as a multivariate performance validity test in patients with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(2), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acz032
24.
ErdodiL. A.AbeareC. A.LichtensteinJ. D.TysonB. T.KucharskiB.ZuccatoB. G.RothR. M. (2017). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) processing speed scores as measures of noncredible responding: The third generation of embedded performance validity indicators. Psychological Assessment, 29(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000319
25.
ErdodiL. A.HurtubiseJ. L.CharronC.DunnA.EnacheA.McDermottA.HirstR. B. (2018). The D-KEFS Trails as performance validity tests. Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000561
26.
ErdodiL. A.KirschN. L.Lajiness-O’NeillR.VingilisE.MedoffB. (2014). Comparing the recognition memory test and the word choice test in a mixed clinical sample: Are they equivalent?Psychological Injury and Law, 7(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9197-8
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.
29.
FuermaierA. B. M.TuchaL.KoertsJ.AschenbrennerS.KaunzingerI.HauserJ.WeisbrodM.LangeK. W.TuchaO. (2015). Cognitive impairment in adult ADHD—Perspective matters!Neuropsychology, 29(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000108
30.
GaliotoR.DhimaK.BerenholzO.BuschR. (2020). Performance validity testing in multiple sclerosis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 26(10), 1028–1035. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617720000466
31.
GervaisR.RohlingM.GreenP.FordW. (2004). A comparison of WMT, CARB, and TOMM failure rates in non-head injury disability claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.05.001
32.
GreenP.FlaroL. (2021). Performance validity test failure predicts suppression of neuropsychological test results in developmentally disabled children. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 10(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2019.1604342
33.
GreenawayM. C.LacritzL. H.BinegarD.WeinerM. F.LiptonA.Munro CullumC. (2006). Patterns of verbal memory performance in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, and normal aging. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 19(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnn.0000208290.57370.a3
34.
GuilmetteT. J.SweetJ. J.HebbenN.KoltaiD.MahoneE. M.SpieglerB. J.StuckyK.WesterveldM., & Conference Participants. (2020). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1722244
35.
HadgkissE. J.JelinekG. A.WeilandT. J.PereiraN. G.MarckC. H.van der MeerD. M. (2013). Methodology of an international study of people with multiple sclerosis recruited through web 2. 0 platforms: Demographics, lifestyle, and disease characteristics. Neurology Research International, 2013, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/580596
36.
HairJ. F.BlackB.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: Global edition (7th ed.). Academic Press.
37.
HarrisR. J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
38.
HermensD. F.Redoblado HodgeM. A.NaismithS. L.KaurM.ScottE.HickieI. B. (2011). Neuropsychological clustering highlights cognitive differences in young people presenting with depressive symptoms. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710001566
39.
HurtubiseJ.BaherT.MessaI.CutlerL.ShaheinA.HastingsM.Carignan-QuerquiM.ErdodiL. A. (2020). Verbal fluency and digit span variables as performance validity indicators in experimentally induced malingering and real world patients with TBI. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 9(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2020.1719409
40.
LaceJ. W.GrantA. F.RuppertP.KaufmanD. A. S.TeagueC. L.LowellK.GfellerJ. D. (2021). Detecting noncredible performance with the neuropsychological assessment battery, screening module: A simulation study. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(3), 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1694703
41.
LaceJ. W.MerzZ. C.GaliotoR. (2021). Exploring the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology in patients with multiple sclerosis. Psychological Injury and Law, 14(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09424-y
42.
LaceJ. W.NakamuraK.HusakS.OntanedaD.GaliotoR. (2022, February4). Standalone performance validity test scores and neuroradiological disease burden in patients with multiple sclerosis [Poster Presentation]. Presented virtually at the 2022 annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://perma.cc/47N5-C28G.
43.
LafosseJ. M.MitchellS. M.CorboyJ. R.FilleyC. M. (2013). The nature of verbal memory impairment in multiple sclerosis: A list-learning and meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19(9), 995–1008. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000957
44.
LangdonD.AmatoM.BoringaJ.BrochetB.FoleyF.FredriksonS.HämäläinenP.HartungH.-P.KruppL.PennerI.RederA.BenedictR. (2012). Recommendations for a brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS). Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 18(6), 891–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511431076
45.
LarrabeeG. J. (2014). Test validity and performance validity: Considerations in providing a framework for development of an ability-focused neuropsychological test battery. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(7), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu049
46.
LaurentR. L.WhitesideD. M.BassoM. R. (2019). Performance validity testing in an older adult population: Considerations for clinical practice. In RavdinL. D.KatzenH. L. (Eds.), Handbook on the neuropsychology of aging and dementia (pp. 77–88). Springer.
47.
LindauM.LundbergM.NajströmM. (2022). WAIS-IV short form applied to a mixed neurological Swedish clinical sample. Nordic Psychology, 74(2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2021.1918225
48.
LoringD. W.GoldsteinF. C.ChenC.DraneD. L.LahJ. J.ZhaoL.LarrabeeG. J. (2016). False-positive error rates for reliable digit span and auditory verbal learning test performance validity measures in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer disease. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw014
49.
LumpkinJ. C. M.SheerinC. M. (2019). Digit span sequencing as a neurocognitive screening tool in an aging, veteran population. Psychology & Neuroscience, 12(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000140
MaimanM.Del BeneV. A.MacAllisterW. S.SheldonS.FarrellE.Arce RenteríaM.SlughM.NadkarniS. S.BarrW. B. (2019). Reliable digit span: Does it adequately measure suboptimal effort in an adult epilepsy population?Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34(2), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy027
52.
McWhirterL.RitchieC. W.StoneJ.CarsonA. (2020). Performance validity test failure in clinical populations—A systematic review. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 91(9), 945–952. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-323776
53.
MerzZ. C.WrightJ. D.Vander WalJ. S.GfellerJ. D. (2018). A factor analytic investigation of the Mercy Evaluation of Multiple Sclerosis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(8), 1431–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1426786
54.
MillerJ. B.AxelrodB. N. (2018). Performance validity assessment: Disentangling dementia from the disinterested and disingenuous. In BushS. S.HeckA. L. (Eds.), Forensic geropsychology: Practice essentials (pp. 25–47). American Psychological Association.
55.
MindenS. L.FrankelD.HaddenL.PerloffJ.SrinathK. P.HoaglinD. C. (2006). The Sonya Slifka longitudinal multiple sclerosis study: Methods and sample characteristics. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 12(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1191/135248506ms1262oa
56.
MoghadasinM.DibajniaP. (2021). Verbal and practical intelligence in general anxiety, obsessive compulsive and major depression disorders. European Review of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2021.100630
57.
MorganS. F.WheelockJ. (1992). Digit symbol and symbol digit modalities tests: Are they directly interchangeable?Neuropsychology, 6(4), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.6.4.327
58.
NautaI.BertensD.van DamM.HuiskampM.DriessenS.GeurtsJ.UitdehaagB.FasottiL.HulstH.de JongB.KleinM. (2021). Performance validity in outpatients with multiple sclerosis and cognitive complaints. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 28, 642–653.
59.
OdlandA. P.LammyA. B.MartinP. K.GroteC. L.MittenbergW. (2015). Advanced administration and interpretation of multiple validity tests. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9216-4
60.
OrdA. S.ShuraR. D.SansoneA. R.MartindaleS. L.TaberK. H.RowlandJ. A. (2021). Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?Neuropsychology, 35(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000722
61.
Pearson. (2009). Advanced clinical solutions word choice test.
62.
PersingerV. C.WhitesideD. M.BobovaL.SaigalS. D.VannucciM. J.BassoM. R. (2018). Using the California Verbal Learning Test, Second Edition as an embedded performance validity measure among individuals with TBI and individuals with psychiatric disorders. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(6), 1039–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1419507
63.
PliskinJ. I.DeDios SternS.ReschZ. J.SaladinoK. F.OvsiewG. P.CarterD. A.SobleJ. R. (2021). Comparing the psychometric properties of eight embedded performance validity tests in the Rey auditory verbal learning test, Wechsler memory scale logical memory, and brief visuospatial memory test–revised recognition trials for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. Assessment, 28(8), 1871–1881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120929093
64.
PoysophonP.RaoA. L. (2018). Neurocognitive deficits associated with ADHD in athletes: A systematic review. Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 10(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738117751387
65.
ProtoD. A.PastorekN. J.MillerB. I.RomesserJ. M.SimA. H.LinckJ. F. (2014). The dangers of failing one or more performance validity tests in individuals claiming mild traumatic brain injury-related postconcussive symptoms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(7), 614–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu044
66.
QuattlebaumJ.MartinP.MoltisantiA.ClarkH.SchroederR. (2019). A-76 specificity of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status digit span as a validity indicator in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34(6), 936–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acz034.76
67.
RaiJ. K.ErdodiL. A. (2021). Impact of criterion measures on the classification accuracy of TOMM-1. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 28(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1613994
68.
ReschZ. J.SobleJ. R.OvsiewG. P.CastilloL. R.SaladinoK. F.DeDios-SternS.SchulzeE. T.SongW.PliskinN. H. (2021). Working memory, processing speed, and memory functioning are minimally predictive of Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance. Assessment, 28(6), 1614–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120911102
69.
ReschZ. J.WebberT. A.BernsteinM. T.RhoadsT.OvsiewG. P.SobleJ. R. (2021). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A systematic review and cross-validation study. Neuropsychology Review, 31(2), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09477-5
70.
RhoadsT.NealeA. C.ReschZ. J.CohenC. D.KeezerR. D.CernyB. M.JennetteK. J.OvsiewG. P.SobleJ. R. (2021). Psychometric implications of failure on one performance validity test: A cross-validation study to inform criterion group definition. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 43(5), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2021.1945540
71.
RhoadsT.ReschZ. J.OvsiewG. P.WhiteD. J.AbramsonD. A.SobleJ. R. (2021). Every second counts: A comparison of four Dot Counting Test scoring procedures for detecting invalid neuropsychological test performance. Psychological Assessment, 33(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000970
72.
SanbornV.LaceJ.GunstadJ.GaliotoR. (2021). Considerations regarding noncredible performance in the neuropsychological assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis: A case series. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 30, 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1971229
73.
SchroederR. W.MartinP. K.HeinrichsR. J.BaadeL. E. (2019). Research methods in performance validity testing studies: Criterion grouping approach impacts study outcomes. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(3), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1484517
74.
ShuraR. D.MartindaleS. L.TaberK. H.HigginsA. M.RowlandJ. A. (2020). Digit Span embedded validity indicators in neurologically-intact veterans. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(5), 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1635209
75.
SlickD. J.HoppG.StraussE.ThompsonG. B. (1997). Manual for the Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Psychological Assessment Resources.
76.
SmithA. (1973). Symbol digit modalities test [Manual]. Western Psychological Services.
77.
SobleJ. R.AlversonW. A.PhillipsJ. I.CritchfieldE. A.FullenC.O’RourkeJ. J. F.MesserlyJ.HighsmithJ. M.BaileyK. C.WebberT. A.MarceauxJ. C. (2020). Strength in numbers or quality over quantity? Examining the importance of criterion measure selection to define validity groups in performance validity test (PVT) Research. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09370-w
78.
SobleJ. R.SantosO. A.BainK. M.KirtonJ. W.BaileyK. C.CritchfieldE. A.O’RourkeJ. J. F.HighsmithJ. M.GonzálezD. A. (2018). The Dot Counting Test adds up: Validation and response pattern analysis in a mixed clinical veteran sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 40(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2017.1342773
79.
SobleJ. R.SharpD. W.CarterD. A.JennetteK. J.ReschZ. J.OvsiewG. P.CritchfieldE. A. (2021). Cross-validation of a forced-choice validity indicator to enhance the clinical utility of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 568–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001018
80.
SweetJ. J.HeilbronnerR. L.MorganJ. E.LarrabeeG. J.RohlingM. L.BooneK. B.KirkwoodM. W.SchroederR. W.SuhrJ. A., & Conference Participants. (2021). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(6), 1053–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036
81.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
82.
TeichnerG.WangerM. T. (2004). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact, cognitively impaired, and elderly patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(3), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00078-7
83.
TheilingJ.PetermannF. (2016). Neuropsychological profiles on the WAIS-IV of adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(11), 913–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054713518241
84.
TombaughT. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering. MHS.
85.
van der KooijA. J. (2007). Prediction accuracy and stability of regression with optimal scaling transformations [Doctoral Thesis]. Universiteit Leiden.
86.
Van DykeS. A.MillisS. R.AxelrodB. N.HanksR. A. (2013). Assessing effort: Differentiating performance and symptom validity. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(8), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2013.835447
87.
VictorT. L.BooneK. B.KulickA. D. (2013). Assessing noncredible sensory, motor, and executive function, and test battery performance in mild traumatic brain injury cases. In CaroneD. A.BushS. S. (Eds.), Mild traumatic brain injury: Symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp. 269–301). Springer.
88.
WebberT. A.SobleJ. R. (2018). Utility of various WAIS-IV Digit Span indices for identifying noncredible performance validity among cognitively impaired and unimpaired examinees. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(4), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1415374
Wilson VanVoorhisC. R.MorganB. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.
91.
WodushekT. R.DomenC. H. (2020). Comparing two models of performance validity assessment in patients with Parkinson’s disease who are candidates for deep brain stimulation surgery. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 27(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1473251
92.
WolfeP. L.MillisS. R.HanksR.FichtenbergN.LarrabeeG. J.SweetJ. J. (2010). Effort indicators within the California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903107791
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.
