ArticleAssessment2022
Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies.
Article in Assessment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025Article
- Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (Continuous and Categorical).Assessment · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis article investigates the accuracy of individual and combined indicators based on different strategies for detecting noncredible performance as part of a new test for the continuous assessment of short-term memory.
methodIn two independent studies, we assessed three groups of simulators, cognitively impaired patients, and nonimpaired community members with four tasks separated by a distractor.
resultsPairwise comparisons between receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed significant differences between two clusters of indicators: mean recognition, inconsistent responses in recognition, and false positives (area under the ROC curves > .800) proved more accurate than delayed recall and false negatives (area under the ROC curves < .800) in discriminating simulators from patients. Likewise, both studies revealed that adding the false positives indicator based on cued recall to mean recognition incrementally improved classification accuracy (including sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value ) compared with the recognition indicator alone.
conclusionsOur results support the association of two distinct indicators for the assessment of noncredible performance, of which one should be a forced-choice indicator.
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.