29 Examining the Relationship between Symptom and Performance Validity Measures Across Referral Subtypes

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Objective:Performance validity (PVT) and symptom validity tests (SVT) have become standard practice in assessing credibility of neuropsychological profiles and symptom report. While PVTs assess cognitive task engagement, SVTs assess credibility of patient symptom report. Although prior research aimed to conceptualize the relationship between the two validity measure types, it generally focused on SVTs from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2 &RF) and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms (SIMS; Ord et al., 2021, MMPI-2; Van Dyke et al., 2013). Further studies have demonstrated mixed results, with many studies concluding that symptom and performance validity are separate but related constructs. The current study aimed to assess the relationship between PVTs and SVTs utilizing symptom validity measures from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) across three samples, including neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and traumatic brain injury groups.Participants and Methods:Participants included 634 individuals consecutively referred for neuropsychological assessment who completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the PAI (mean Age = 41.7, SD = 15.7; mean Education = 13.7, SD = 2.7; 53% female; 89% Caucasian). Participants were divided into three groups based on referral, including neurodevelopmental (mean Age = SD = 10.7; mean Education = 13.4, SD = 2.5; 39% female; 79% Caucasian), psychiatric (mean Age = 44.7, SD = 15.0; mean Education = 13.8, SD = 2.8; 58% female; 90% Caucasian), and traumatic brain injury samples (mean Age = SD = 15.5; mean Education = 13.3, SD = 2.3; 50% female; 91% Caucasian). Four structural equation models (latent variable models) were constructed. The first model was fit across the entire sample while the remaining three were fit for the aforementioned subsamples. TOMM trials modeled the performance validity latent variable while SVTs from the PAI modeled the symptom validity latent variable (Positive Impression Management and Defensiveness Index modeled underreporting; Negative Impression Management, Malingering Index, and Cognitive Bias Scale modeled overreporting).Results:In the full sample model overreporting significantly predicted performance validity (p < 0.001, r = -0.31), indicating higher symptom overreporting related to poorer performance validity while symptom underreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.09, r = 0.08). In the neurodevelopmental model overreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.44, r = 0.10). Further, symptom underreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.40, r = 0.10). Similarly, for the TBI model, overreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.82, r = -0.02) and symptom underreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.50, r = -0.08). For the psychiatric sample symptom underreporting did not significantly predict performance validity (p = 0.06, r = 0.11); however, symptom overreporting significantly predicted performance validity (p < 0.001, r = - 0.39).Conclusions:The current study expands on prior research comparing the relationship between SVTs and PVTs in neuropsychological evaluation utilizing SVTs from the PAI. Results of the present study suggest the relationship between the SVTs and PVTs varies by referral type and further supports using both PVTs and SVTs in neuropsychological assessment.