Abstract

Objective: This study was designed to examine the classification accuracy of verbal fluency (VF) measures as performance validity tests (PVT).Method: Student volunteers were assigned to the control (n = 57) or experimental malingering (n = 24) condition. An archival sample of 77 patients with TBI served as a clinical comparison.Results: Among students, FAS T-score ≤29 produced a good combination of sensitivity (.40–.42) and specificity (.89–.95). Animals T-score ≤31 had superior sensitivity (.53–.71) at .86-.93 specificity. VF tests performed similarly to commonly used PVTs embedded within Digit Span: RDS ≤7 (.54–.80 sensitivity at .93–.97 specificity) and age-corrected scaled score (ACSS) ≤6 (.54–.67 sensitivity at .94–.96 specificity). In the clinical sample, specificity was lower at liberal cutoffs [animals T-score ≤31 (.89–.91), RDS ≤7 (.86–.89) and ACSS ≤6 (.86–.96)], but comparable at conservative cutoffs [animals T-score ≤29 (.94–.96), RDS ≤6 (.95–.98) and ACSS ≤5 (.92–.96)].Conclusions: Among students, VF measures had higher signal detection performance than previously reported in clinical samples, likely due to the absence of genuine impairment. The superior classification accuracy of animal relative to letter fluency was replicated. Results suggest that existing validity cutoffs can be extended to cognitively high functioning examinees, and emphasize the importance of population-specific cutoffs.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.