ArticleArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2026
Does performance invalidity undermine replication? Evidence from an undergraduate student participant sample.
Article in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePerformance invalidity is well-documented in clinical and forensic neuropsychology, yet its potential influence on data quality in psychological research has received little attention. This raises concerns for reproducibility, particularly given widespread use of undergraduate students as research participants. The present study examined whether incorporating Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) into a research protocol provides a practical method for improving data quality and interpretation.
methodAs part of a larger replication initiative, PVTs were embedded into a direct replication of a 2008 prescribed optimism study. 87 undergraduate students were classified as credible or non-credible based on PVT performance, and analyses were repeated within subgroups.
resultsThe effect replicated successfully across the sample (d = 0.98), consistent with the original study (d = 0.93). 17.2% of participants failed one or more PVTs. The credible subgroup yielded a larger effect (d = 1.02) than the full sample, whereas the non-credible subgroup produced a smaller effect (d = 0.87), and a directional reversal in the secondary analysis - a pattern inconsistent with prior literature and suggestive of systematic noise that disengaged responding may introduce into data. Further, credible and non-credible subgroups differed significantly on the primary outcome despite being demographically and experimentally equivalent.
conclusionsPerformance invalidity occurs at a non-trivial rate in undergraduate research samples and can influence study outcomes. Incorporating PVTs into research protocols offers a practical, scalable safeguard to improving data quality and transparency, highlighting how neuropsychology's established tools could contribute solutions to reproducibility challenges in psychological science.
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.