RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The high potential for secondary gain among college students presenting for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) evaluations highlights the need for psychometrically sound embedded validity indicators. The purpose of this study was to develop new validity indicators specific to feigned ADHD for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and compare them to preexisting imbedded PAI validity measures. METHOD: PAI scales that were theoretically related to feigned ADHD were evaluated. A binomial (ADHD simulators, n = 138, and genuine ADHD, n = 142) logistic regression was conducted with selected PAI scales and subscales. Classification rates were compared between the new and existing validity scales. A similar approach was used for item-level data in a second study in a subgroup of the original sample. RESULTS: The derived PAI scale-based logistic regression had a sensitivity of 54% and specificity of 92%. This algorithm accurately identified 97% of healthy controls as not feigning ADHD and correctly identified 98% of a no diagnosis group and 75% of a mood/anxiety disorders group. Classification accuracy of the new index was superior to the majority of existing PAI validity scales across groups. An item-level PAI algorithm had a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 97% for identifying feigned ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: New validity measures were compared to existing PAI validity indicators and performed better than many of them in this study. The algorithms developed in this study of ADHD simulators and genuine ADHD cases have adequate sensitivity and good specificity and appear to function differently than other PAI symptom validity scales.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad/diagnóstico , Simulación de Enfermedad/diagnóstico , Determinación de la Personalidad , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
This study examined intra-individual variability in a large sample (n = 629) of individuals with a history of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) or TBI referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Variability was assessed using the overall test battery mean standard deviation (OTBM SD). We found a negative linear relation between OTBM and OTBM SD (r = -.672) in this sample with a history of neurologic pathology, indicating that the variability is inversely related to cognitive performance and contrary to what is observed in most normative data. Analyses revealed main effects for OTBM and OTBM SD across three TBI severity groups: loss of consciousness (LOC) <1 h, LOC 1 h-6 days, and LOC >6 days. These effects were found for both a valid performance group (no failed embedded validity measures; n = 504) and an invalid performance group (failed one or more embedded validity measures; n = 125). These findings support that cognitive intra-individual variability is increased uniquely by both neuropathology and suboptimal effort, there is a dose-response relationship between neuropathology and cognitive variability, and intra-individual variability may have utility as a clinical index of both.
Asunto(s)
Lesiones Encefálicas/psicología , Cognición/fisiología , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Individualidad , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
Classification accuracy for the detection of malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) in mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is examined for two selected measures from the Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II (CPT-II) using criterion-groups validation. Individual and joint classification accuracies are presented for Omissions and Hit Reaction Time Standard Error across a range of scores comparing mild TBI malingering (n = 27), mild TBI not-malingering (n = 31), and moderate-to-severe (M/S) TBI not-malingering (n = 24) groups. At cutoffs associated with at least 95% specificity in both mild and M/S TBI, sensitivity to MND in mild TBI was 30% for Omissions, 41% for Hit Reaction Time Standard Error, and 44% using both indicators. These results support the use of the CPT-II as a reliable indicator for the detection of malingering in TBI when used as part of a comprehensive diagnostic system.