Clinical utility of the Rey 15-Item Test, recognition trial, and error scores for detecting noncredible neuropsychological performance in a mixed clinical sample of veterans

Abstract

Objective: This cross-sectional study examined the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT), Recognition Trial, and Error Scores for identifying noncredible performance in a mixed clinical veteran sample compared to another widely used validity measure, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Method: Sixty-two veterans who completed the RFIT (Recall/Recognition Trials), TOMM, and Word Memory Test (WMT) during clinical evaluation were included. Using the WMT as the criterion, 71% (N = 44) were classified as valid and 29% (N = 18) as invalid. Results: Among valid participants, 25% failed the RFIT Recall, whereas 78% of invalid participants passed (sensitivity: 22%; specificity: 75%; diagnostic odds ratio [DOR]: .86). The Recognition Trial increased sensitivity to 39% for identifying invalid performance, but 25% of valid participants still scored below cut-off (specificity: 75%; DOR: 1.91). RFIT Recall and Recognition Trial logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were nonsignificant, with respective classification accuracies of 71 and 72.6% and areas under the curve (AUCs) of .52 and .55. RFIT Error Scores also failed to differentiate validity groups. In contrast, TOMM had stronger psychometric properties (sensitivity: 50%; specificity: 97.7%; DOR: 43; classification accuracy: 82.3%; AUC: .91). Moreover, RFIT Recall and Recognition failure rates were 14 and 22% greater, respectively, among those with cognitive impairment, whereas 95% of those with impairment and 100% without passed the TOMM. Conclusion: Despite frequent use among VA neuropsychologists, the RFIT displayed limited ability to detect noncredible performance and misclassified a large percentage of valid participants in this mixed clinical veteran sample, suggesting limited utility with this population.