SynthesisNeuropsychology review2022
Response Time Measures as Supplementary Validity Indicators in Forced-Choice Recognition Memory Performance Validity Tests: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting Feigned Pain Using an Eye-Tracker Integrated Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Trial
- Feigning Adult ADHD on a Comprehensive Neuropsychological Test Battery: An Analogue Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The Multi-Level Pattern Memory Test (MPMT): Initial Validation of a Novel Performance Validity Test.Brain sciences · 2021Article
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
Performance validity tests (PVTs) based on the forced-choice recognition memory (FCRM) paradigm are commonly used for the detection of noncredible performance. Examinees' response times (RTs) are affected by cognitive processes associated with deception and can also be gathered without lengthening the duration of the assessment. Consequently, interest in the utility of these measures as supplementary validity indicators in FCRM-PVTs has grown over the years. The current systematic review summarizes both clinical and simulation (i.e., healthy participants simulating cognitive impairment) studies of RTs in FCRM-PVTs. The findings of 25 peer-reviewed articles (n = 26 empirical studies) indicate that noncredible performance in FCRM-PVTs is associated with longer RTs. Additionally, there are indications that noncredible performance is associated with larger variability in RTs. RT measures, however, have lower discrimination capacity than conventional accuracy measures. Their utility may therefore lie in reaching decisions regarding cases with border zone accuracy scores, as well as aiding in the detection of more sophisticated examinees who are aware of the use of accuracy-based validity indicators in FCRM-PVTs. More research, however, is required before these measures are incorporated in daily practice and clinical decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33821424What 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.