Symptom Versus Performance Validity in Patients with Mild TBI: Independent Sources of Non-credible Responding.

Citation metadata

From: Psychological Injury and Law(Vol. 14, Issue 1)
Publisher: Springer
Document Type: Report; Brief article
Length: 305 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords: Symptom validity; Performance validity; Mild TBI; Psychogenic interference; MMPI-2; Word memory test Abstract This study was designed to examine the relative contribution of symptom (SVT) and performance validity tests (PVTs) to the evaluation of the credibility of neuropsychological profiles in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). An archival sample of 326 patients with mTBI was divided into four psychometrically defined criterion groups: pass both SVT and PVT pass one, but fail the other and fail both. Scores on performance-based tests of neurocognitive ability and self-reported symptom inventories were compared across the groups. As expected, PVT failure was associated with lower scores on ability tests (η.sub.p.sup.2 .042--.184 d 0.56--1.00 medium-large effects), and SVT failure was associated with higher levels of symptom report (η.sub.p.sup.2 .039--.312 d 0.32--1.58 small-very large effects). However, SVT failure also had a marginal deleterious effect on performance based measures (η.sub.p.sup.2 .017--.023 d 0.23--0.46 small-medium effects) and elevations on self-report inventories were observed in the context of PVT failure (η.sub.p.sup.2 .026 d 0.23--0.57 small-medium effects). SVT failure was associated with not only inflated symptom reports but also distorted configural patterns of psychopathology. Patients with clinically elevated somatic and depressive symptoms were twice as likely to fail PVTs. Consistent with previous research, SVTs and PVTs provide overlapping, but non-redundant information about the credibility of neuropsychological profiles associated with mTBI. Therefore, they should be used in combination to afford a comprehensive evaluation of cognitive and emotional functioning. The heuristic value of validity tests has both clinical and forensic relevance. Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada (2) Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (3) Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Lebanon, NH, USA (4) Department of Integrative Biology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada (f) lerdodi@gmail.com Article History: Registration Date: 02/10/2021 Received Date: 09/02/2020 Accepted Date: 02/09/2021 Online Date: 03/30/2021 Byline:

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A658513186