Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433828›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2021

Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A Systematic Review and Cross-Validation Study.

Zachary J Resch, Troy A Webber, Matthew T Bernstein, Tasha Rhoads, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Jason R Soble

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is there evidence for additive neurocognitive deficits in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and co-occurring conditions?Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zachary J ReschDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. zachary.resch@my.rfums.org.ORCID 0000-0002-3199-6168
Troy A WebberRehabilitation and Extended Care Line, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1605-6557
Matthew T BernsteinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9066-733X
Tasha RhoadsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9708-0083
Gabriel P OvsiewDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jason R SobleDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3348-8762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) is a performance validity test (PVT) with over two decades of empirical backing, although methodological limitations within the extant literature restrict its clinical and research generalizability. Chief among these constraints includes limited consensus on the most accurate index within the VSVT and the most appropriate cut-scores within each VSVT validity index. The current systematic review synthesizes existing VSVT validation studies and provides additional cross-validation in an independent sample using a known-groups design. We completed a systematic search of the literature, identifying 17 peer-reviewed studies for synthesis (7 simulation designs, 7 differential prevalence designs, and 3 known-groups designs). The independent cross-validation sample consisted of 200 mixed clinical neuropsychiatric patients referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Across all indices, Total item accuracy produced the strongest psychometric properties at an optimal cut-score of ≤ 40 (62% sensitivity/88% specificity). However, ROC curve analyses for all VSVT indices yielded statistically significant areas under the curve (AUCs; .73-81), suggestive of moderate classification accuracy. Cut-scores derived using the independent cross-validation sample converged with some previous findings supporting cut-scores of ≤ 22 for Easy item accuracy and ≤ 40 for Total item accuracy, although divergent findings were noted for Difficult item accuracy. Overall, VSVT validity indicators have adequate diagnostic accuracy across populations, with the current study providing additional support for its use as a psychometrically sound PVT in clinical settings. However, caution is recommended among patients with certain verified clinical conditions (e.g., dementia) and those with pronounced working memory deficits due to concerns for increased risk of false positives.

Indexed as

Memory DisordersMemory, Short-TermHumansNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAssessmentPerformance validityPsychometricsVictoria symptom validity testVSVT

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.