Abstract
Accurate identification of symptom exaggeration is essential when determining whether or not data obtained in pediatric evaluations are valid or interpretable. Apart from using freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs), many researchers encourage use of embedded measures of test-related motivation, including the newly developed automatized sequences test (AST). Such embedded measures are based on identification of performance patterns that are implausible if the test taker is investing full effort; however, it is unclear whether or not persons with pre-existing cognitive difficulties such as specific learning disabilities (SLD) might be falsely accused of poor test motivation due to actual but impaired learning of basic sequences. This study examined the specificity of the AST by reviewing performance of 83 SLD adolescents. Anywhere from 22 to 41% of SLD adolescents investing good effort failed one or more of the tasks included in the AST, and those with lower intelligence scores had higher rates of failure. Clinicians should therefore be cautious if using this PVT with individuals who have a documented history of reading, learning, or intellectual problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
01 November 2018
In the original article the name of author Allyson G. Harrison was misspelled. The original article has been updated and her name is correct here.
Notes
1. The Ontario Ministry of Education classifies individuals as learning disabled as “having a learning disorder evident in both academic and social situations that involves one or more of the processes necessary for the proper use of spoken language or the symbols of communication, and that is characterized by a condition that (1) is not primarily the result of impairment of vision, impairment of hearing, physical disability, developmental disability, primary emotional disturbance, or cultural difference; (2) results in a significant discrepancy between academic achievement and assessed intellectual ability, with deficits in one or more of the following: receptive language (listening, reading), language processing (thinking, conceptualizing, integrating), expressive language (talking, spelling, writing), or mathematical computations; and (3) may be associated with one or more conditions diagnosed as follows: a perceptual handicap, a brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, developmental aphasia.” (Taken from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/adaptivetech/Special_Ed/Communication_Exceptionality/Learning_Disability/index.html)
References
Adelman, H. S., Lauber, B., Nelson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Minimizing and detecting false positive diagnoses of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200407.
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). (2007). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) Practice Guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and consultation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580601025932.
Babikian, T., & Boone, K. (2007). Intelligence tests as measures of effort. In K. Boone (Ed.), Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: a neuropsychological perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Babikian, T., Boone, K. B., Lu, P., & Arnold, G. (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.
Boone, K. B. (2009). The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040802427803.
Brooke, U., & Boaz, M. (2006). Adolescents with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder/learning disability and their proneness to accidents. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 73, 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02825823.
Bush, S., Ruff, R., Troster, A., Barth, J., Koffler, S., Pliskin, N., Reynolds, C., & Silver, C. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity NAN policy & planning committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002.
DeRight, J., & Carone, D. A. (2013). Assessment of effort in children: a systematic review. Child Neuropsychology, 12, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.864383.
Flaro, L., & Boone, K. (2009). Using objective effort measures to detect noncredible cognitive test performance in children and adolescents. In J. E. Morgan & J. J. Sweet (Eds.), Neuropsychology of malingering casebook (pp. 369–376). New York: Psychology Press.
Green, P. (2003). Word Memory Test for Windows: user’s manual and program. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing.
Green, P. (2004). The medical symptom validity test: test manual and MS Windows computer program. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing.
Green, P., & Flaro, L. (2003). Word memory test performance in children. Child Neuropsychology, 9, 189–207.
Green, P., Flaro, L., & Courtney, J. (2009). Examining false positives on the Word Memory Test in adults with mild traumatic brain injury. Brain injury, 23(9), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050903133962.
Guilmette, T. J. (2013). The role of clinical judgement in symptom validity testing. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild traumatic injury: symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp. 31–43). New York: Springer.
Harrison, A. G., Edwards, M. E., & Parker, K. P. (2008). Identifying students feigning dyslexia: Preliminary findings and strategies for detection. Dyslexia, 14(3), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.366.
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Conference Participants 1. (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.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (with Breaux, K. C). (2014). Technical & interpretive manual: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed.). Bloomington: NCS Pearson.
Kirkwood, M. W., Kirk, J. W., Blaha, R. Z., & Wilson, P. (2010). Noncredible effort during pediatric neuropsychological exam: a case series and literature review. Child Neuropsychology, 16(6), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2010.495059.
Kirkwood, M. W., Hargrave, D. D., & Kirk, J. W. (2011a). The value of the WISC-IV digit span subtest in detecting noncredible performance during pediatric neuropsychological examinations. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(5), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acr040.
Kirkwood, M.W., Yeates, K.O., Randolph, C., & Kirk, J.W. (2011b). The implications of symptom validity test failure for ability-based test performance in a pediatric sample. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024628.
Kirkwood, M. W., Connery, A. K., Kirk, J. W., & Baker, D. A. (2014). Detecting performance invalidity in children: Not quite as easy as A, B, C, 1, 2, 3 but automatized sequences appears promising. Child Neuropsychology, 20, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2012.759553.
Larochette, A., & Harrison, A. G. (2012). Word Memory Test performance in Canadian adolescents with learning disabilities: a preliminary study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2012.665777.
Lu, P. H., & Boone, K. B. (2002). Suspect cognitive symptoms in a 9-year-old child: malingering by proxy? Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.16.1.90.8328.
Martin, P., Schroeder, R., & Odland, A. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: a survey of North American professionals. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597
McCaffrey, R. J., & Lynch, J. K. (2009). Malingering following documented brain injury: neuropsychological evaluation of children in a forensic setting. In J. E. Morgan & J. J. Sweet (Eds.), Neuropsychology of malingering casebook (pp. 377–385). New York: Psychology Press.
Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2007). Procedural learning difficulties: reuniting the developmental disorders? Trends in Neurosciences, 30, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2007.02.003.
Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2011). Dyslexia, dysgraphia, procedural learning and the cerebellum. Cortex, 47, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.016.
Salekin, R. T., Kubak, F. A., & Lee, Z. (2007). Deception in children and adolescents. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 343–364). New York: Guilford.
Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows: Riverside.
Sharland, M. J., & Gfeller, J. D. (2007). A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to assessment of effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.12.004.
Sigmundsson, H. (2005). Do visual processing deficits cause problems on response time task for dyslexics? Brain and Cognition, 58, 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.11.007.
Staels, E., & Van den Broeck, W. (2017). A specific implicit sequence learning deficit as an underlying cause of dyslexia? Investigating the role of attention in implicit learning tasks. Neuropsychology, 31(4), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000348.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word Reading efficiency–second edition (TOWRE-2). Austin: Pro Ed.
Victor, T. L., Boone, K. B., Serpa, J. G., Beuhler, J., & Ziegler, E. A. (2009). Interpreting the meaning of multiple symptom validity test failure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(2), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040802232682.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin: Pro-Ed.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fourth edition: American manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: a longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57(4), 988–1000.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: a conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387–407.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Right
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
The original version of this article was revised to correct a misspelled author name.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrison, A.G., Armstrong, I. Automatized Sequences as a Performance Validity Test? Difficult If You Have Never Learned Your ABCs. J Pediatr Neuropsychol 4, 86–92 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-018-0058-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-018-0058-3