ReviewBrain injury2014
Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury.
Review in Brain injury, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Relationship Between Cognitive Functioning and Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults with a Traumatic Brain Injury: a Meta-Analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Response Time Measures as Supplementary Validity Indicators in Forced-Choice Recognition Memory Performance Validity Tests: A Systematic Review.Neuropsychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Performance validity testing: the need for digital technology and where to go from here.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (Continuous and Categorical).Assessment · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies.Assessment · 2022Article
- Performance validity in outpatients with multiple sclerosis and cognitive complaints.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Article
- Examining the Clinical Utility of Selected Memory-Based Embedded Performance Validity Tests in Neuropsychological Assessment of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology international · 2021Article
- Auditory and Cognitive Behavioral Performance Deficits and Symptom Reporting in Postconcussion Syndrome Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2019Article
- Workplace and non-workplace mild traumatic brain injuries in an outpatient clinic sample: A case-control study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Diffusion imaging of mild traumatic brain injury in the impact accelerated rodent model: A pilot study.Brain injury · 2017Article
- Predictors of six-month inability to return to work in previously employed subjects after mild traumatic brain injury: A TRACK-TBI pilot study.Journal of concussionArticle
- White Matter Associations With Performance Validity Testing in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: The Utility of Biomarkers in Complicated Assessment.The Journal of head trauma rehabilitationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. REVIEW: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a 'passing' SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed.
conclusionsAdvances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.