Advertisement

Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 138–143 | Cite as

Cutoff Scores for the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for PTSD: Considerations for Use in VA Mental Health Examinations

  • Kenneth R. MorelEmail author
Article

Abstract

The use of cutoff scores on symptom validity measures has been applied to determine the authenticity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation and pension examinations. This approach is controversial due to variations in the interpretation and application of cutoff scores from symptom validity testing. In response to the proposal that the cutoff score on the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (MENT) be increased, the diagnostic accuracy of the standard cutting score for identifying simulated symptoms of PTSD was compared to the proposed alternate cutoff score. The results of decision matrix tables (true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative) comparing the sensitivity and specificity and deriving confidence intervals for the standard cutoff score and proposed alternate cutoff score are presented. In addition, analyses using binomial probability theory to determine whether the outcome of increasing the cutoff score on the MENT meets reasonable standards for types I and II errors are presented.

Keywords

Morel Emotional Numbing Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder MENT Veterans PTSD Symptom validity tests Military Malingering Effort testing 

References

  1. Association, A. P. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. Arbisi, P. A., Murdoch, M., Fortier, L., & McNulty, J. (2004). MMPI-2 validity and award of service connection for PTSD during the VA compensation and pension evaluation. Psychological Services, 1(1), 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bianchini, K. J., Greve, K. W., & Love, J. M. (2003). Definite malingered neurocognitive dysfunction in moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(4), 574–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Troster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., ... Silver, C. H. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity. National Academy of Neuropsychology Policy and Planning Committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(4), 419–426.Google Scholar
  5. Fox, D. D. (2011). Symptom validity test failure indicates invalidity of neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(3), 488–495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green, P. (2001). Why clinicians often disagree about the validity of test results. Neuro Rehabilitation, 16, 231–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, P. (2007). Spoiled for choice: Making comparisons between forced choice effort tests. In K. Boone (Ed.), Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective (pp. 50–77). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Greve, K. W., Bianchini, K. J., & Ameduri, C. J. (2003). The use of a forced choice test of tactile discrimination in the evaluation of functional sensory loss: A report of 3 cases. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(8), 1233–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howe, L. L. (2012). Distinguishing genuine from malingered posttraumatic stress disorder in head injury litigation. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (pp. 301–330). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Iverson, G. L. (2003). Detecting malingering in civil forensic evaluations. In A. M. Horton Jr. & L. C. Hartlage (Eds.), Handbook of forensic neuropsychology (pp. 137–177). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 77–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 1–7.Google Scholar
  14. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Morel, K. R. (1995). Use of the binomial theorem in detecting fictitious posttraumatic stress disorder. Anxiety Disorders Practice Journal, 2(1), 55–62.Google Scholar
  16. Morel, K. R. (1998). Development and preliminary validation of a forced-choice test of response bias for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 299–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morel, K. R. (2008). Development of a validity scale for posttraumatic stress disorder: Evidence from simulated malingerers and actual disability claimants. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 19(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morel, K. R. (2012). Manual for the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Psychometric Properties. (3rd ed. rev.). Las Vegas, NV: Author.Google Scholar
  19. Morel, K. R., & Shepherd, B. E. (2008). Developing a symptom validity test for posttraumatic stress disorder: Application of the binomial distribution. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1297–1302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orme, D. R. (2012). Diagnosing PTSD: Lessons from neuropsychology. Military Psychology, 24(4), 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Resnick, P. J., & Knoll, J. (2005). Faking it: How to detect malingered psychosis. Journal of Family Practice, 4(11), 13–25. Retrieved from http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=2821#bib2 Google Scholar
  22. Rubenzer, S. (2009). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Assessing response style and malingering. Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 114–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, G. (2007). Determination of cutoff score for a diagnostic test. The Internet Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2(1).Google Scholar
  24. Wiedmaier, P. (2011). Normative data for three symptom validity tests: The Morel Emotional Numbing Test (MENT), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) and the List of Improbable Problems (LIMP). [Schätzung von Normalbefunden fur drei Beschwerden validierungstests: Der Morel Emotional Numbing Test (MENT), der Strukturierte Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome (SFSS) und die List of Improbable Problems (LIMP)]. Germany: Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, J. M., & Jones, K. (2008). Factitious responding and malingered memory disorder. In C. Reynolds (Ed.), The detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  26. Worthen, M. D., & Moering, R. G. (2011). A practical guide to conducting VA compensation and pension exams for PTSD and other mental disorders. Psychological Injury and Law, 4(3–4), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consultant in Psychological AssessmentLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations