Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Validity Testing in an Older Adult Population: Considerations for Clinical Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook on the Neuropsychology of Aging and Dementia

Part of the book series: Clinical Handbooks in Neuropsychology ((CHNEURO))

Abstract

To make valid inferences regarding the meaning of test scores, neuropsychologists must verify that the patient exerted credible performance during the evaluation. Performance validity tests (PVTs) are routinely employed to determine whether test data reflect genuine cognitive ability or response bias (i.e., malingering or noncredible performance) (Martin PK, Schroeder RW, Odland AP. Clin Neuropsychol 29:741–776, 2015; Sharland M, Gfeller J. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 22:213–223, 2007). Historically, most research concerning the application of PVTs has been conducted on populations with clear external incentives, such as individuals with mild traumatic brain injury involved in civil lawsuits (Larrabee GJ. Clin Neuropsychol 17:410–425, 2003; Carone DA, Bush SA (2013) Mild traumatic brain injury: symptom validity assessment and malingering. Springer, New York). However, neuropsychologists commonly administer PVTs in clinical practice, so their use is not restricted to forensic contexts (Bush SS, Ruff RM, Tröster AI, Barth JT, Koffler SP, Pliskin NH, Reynolds CR, Silver CH. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 20:419–426, 2005; Heilbronner RL, Sweet JJ, Morgan JE, Larrabee GJ, Millis SR. Clin Neuropsychol 23:1093–1129, 2009). For example, PVTs have been studied for use in pain, psychiatric conditions, intellectually disabled, and pediatric populations (Donders J, Kirkwood MW (2013) Symptom validity assessment with special populations. Carone, Dominic A, Bush, Shane S, Mild traumatic brain injury: symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp 399–410) Xvii, 430 pp, New York, NS: Springer Publishing Co; US, 399–410) in addition to older adults. This chapter will focus on concepts and research relating to PVT use with older adults and illustrate these issues with two contrasting case vignettes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Berthelson L, Mulchan SS, Odland AP, Miller LJ, Mittenberg W. False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests. Brain Inj. 2013;27(7–8):909–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.793400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bianchini KJ, Greve KW, Glynn G. On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: lessons from cognitive malingering research. Spine J. 2005.; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bilder RM, Sugar C a, Hellemann GS. Cumulative false positive rates given multiple performance validity tests: commentary on Davis and Millis (2014) and Larrabee (2014). Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28(8):1212–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.969774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boone, K. B. (2013). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology: An evidence-based approach. Evidence-based practice in neuropsychology. Retrieved from http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282239764?accountid=14771%; http://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PsycINFO&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:

  5. Boone KB, Lu P, Back C, King C, Lee A, Philpott L, Shamieh E, Warner-Chacon K. Sensitivity and specificity of the Rey Dot Counting Test in patients with suspect effort and various clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2002a;17(7):625–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(01)00166-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boone KB, Lu P, Herzberg D. The Dot Counting Test manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2002b.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burton RL, Enright J, O’Connell ME, Lanting S, Morgan D. RBANS embedded measures of suboptimal effort in dementia: effort scale has a lower failure rate than the effort index. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;30(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bush SS, Ruff RM, Tröster AI, Barth JT, Koffler SP, Pliskin NH, Reynolds CR, Silver CH. Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity: NAN Policy & Planning Committee. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20(4):419–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dean AC, Victor TL, Boone KB, Philpott LM, Hess RA. Dementia and effort test performance. Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;23(1):133–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701819050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Delis DC, Kramer J, Kaplan E, Ober B. California verbal learning test: second edition. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Donders J, Kirkwood MW Symptom validity assessment with special populations. Carone, Dominic A, Bush, Shane S, Mild traumatic brain injury: symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp 399–410) Xvii, 430 pp, New York, NS: Springer Publishing Co; US, 399–410;2013. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc10&AN=2012–24828-019%; http://library.newcastle.edu.au/resserv?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=&issn=&isbn=978–0–8261-0915-6&volume=&issue=&spage=399&pages

  12. Dunham KJ, Shadi S, Sofko CA, Denney RL, Calloway J. Comparison of the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status effort scale and effort index in a dementia sample. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;29(7):633–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Green P. Manual for the word memory test for windows. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Green P. Medical symptom validity test (MSVT) for Microsoft windows: User’s manual. Edmonton: Paul Green’s Publishing; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Green, P. Test manual for the Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Green P, Montijo J, Brockhaus R. High specificity of the word memory test and medical symptom validity test in groups with severe verbal memory impairment. Appl Neuropsychol. 2011;18(2):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2010.523389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greiffenstein MF, Baker WJ, Gola T. Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(3):218–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.3.218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Greve KW, Bianchini KJ. Setting empirical cut-offs on psychometric indicators of negative response bias: a methodological commentary with recommendations. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(4):533–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guilmette TJ. The role of clinical judgment in symptom validity assessment. In: Carone D, Bush SS, editors. Mild traumatic brain injury: symptom validity assessment and malingering. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heaton RK, Smith HH, Lehman RA, Vogt AT. Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1978;46(5):892–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.5.892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heilbronner RL, Sweet JJ, Morgan JE, Larrabee GJ, Millis SR. American Academy of clinical neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;23(December 2015):1093–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903155063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Howe L, Anderson A, Kaufman D, Sachs B, Loring D. Characterization of the medical symptom validity test in evaluation of clinically referred memory disorders clinic patients. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22(6):753–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Larrabee GJ. Detection of malingering using a typical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section D. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17(3):410–25. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.17.3.410.18089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Larrabee GJ. False-positive rates associated with the use of multiple performance and symptom validity tests. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;29(4):364–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Larrabee GJ. The clinical neuropsychologist minimizing false positive error with multiple performance validity tests: response to Bilder, Sugar, and Hellemann (2014 this issue); 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.988754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Loring DW, Goldstein FC, Chen C, Drane DL, Lah JJ, Zhao L, Larrabee GJ. 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. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;31(4):313–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin PK, Schroeder RW, Odland AP. Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: a survey of North American professionals. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(6):741–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Novitski J, Steele S, Karantzoulis S, Randolph C. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status effort scale. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27(2):190–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acr119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Randolph C. Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rey A. L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rienstra A, Twennaar MK, Schmand B. Neuropsychological characterization of patients with the WMT dementia profile. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;28(5):463–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/act026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rudman N, Oyebode JR, Jones C a, Bentham P. An investigation into the validity of effort tests in a working age dementia population. Aging Ment Health. 2011;15(1):47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.508770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schroeder RW, Twumasi-Ankrah P, Baade LE, Marshall PS. Reliable digit span: a systematic review and cross-validation study. Assessment. 2012;19(1):21–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111428764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharland M, Gfeller J. A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22(2):213–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Silverberg ND, Wertheimer JC, Fichtenberg NL. An effort index for the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS). Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;21(5):841–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040600850958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Singhal A, Green P, Ashaye K, Shankar K, Gill D. High specificity of the medical symptom validity test in patients with very severe memory impairment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;24(8):721–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acp074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Slick DJ, Sherman EM, Iverson GL. Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. Clin Neuropsychol. 1999;13(4):545–61. https://doi.org/10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Slick DJ, Sherman EMS. Differential diagnosis of malingering. In: Carone DA, Bush SS, editors. Mild traumatic brain injury. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2013. p. 57–72. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2887.7609.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Spencer RJ, Axelrod BN, Drag LL, Waldron-Perrine B, Pangilinan PH, Bieliauskas LA. WAIS-IV reliable digit span is no more accurate than age corrected scaled score as an indicator of invalid performance in a veteran sample undergoing evaluation for mTBI. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27(November 2015):1362–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2013.845248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Teichner G, Wagner MT. The test of memory malingering (TOMM): normative data from cognitively intact, cognitively impaired, and elderly patients with dementia. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(3):455–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00078-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tombaugh TN. Test of memory malingering (TOMM). New York: Multi-Health Systems, Inc; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Walter J, Morris J, Swier-Vosnos A, Pliskin N. [Formula: see text] effects of severity of dementia on a symptom validity measure. Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28(7):1197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.960454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Whiteside DM, Gaasedelen OJ, Hahn-Ketter AE, Luu H, Miller ML, Persinger V, Rice L, Basso MR. Derivation of a cross-domain embedded performance validity measure in traumatic brain injury. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(6):788–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1093660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Young JC, Sawyer RJ, Roper BL, Baughman BC. The clinical neuropsychologist expansion and re-examination of digit span effort indices on the WAIS-IV expansion and re-examination of digit span effort indices on the WAIS-IV. Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26(261):147–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2011.647083

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Richard L. Laurent & Douglas M. Whiteside

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA

    Michael R. Basso

Authors
  1. Richard L. Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas M. Whiteside
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael R. Basso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas M. Whiteside .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Lisa D. Ravdin

  2. Department of Neurology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    Heather L. Katzen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Laurent, R.L., Whiteside, D.M., Basso, M.R. (2019). Performance Validity Testing in an Older Adult Population: Considerations for Clinical Practice. In: Ravdin, L.D., Katzen, H.L. (eds) Handbook on the Neuropsychology of Aging and Dementia. Clinical Handbooks in Neuropsychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation