Victoria Symptom Validity Test Research Articles

Known-Groups Cross-Validation of the Letter Memory Test in a Compensation-Seeking Mixed Neurologic Sample

Compensation-seeking neuropsychological evaluees were classified into Honest (HON; n = 37) or Probable Cognitive Feigning (PCF; n = 53) groups based on results from the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—3rd ed. The groups were generally comparable on demographic, background, and injury severity characteristics, although HON TBI participants were significantly more likely to have a documented loss of consciousness, whereas PCF participants were significantly more likely to be currently on disability. PCF participants scored significantly lower on many neuropsychological test, particularly of memory, as well as higher on most MMPI-2 clinical scales. The PCF group also had significantly higher scores on multiple indices of feigning of psychiatric symptoms. Results from the Letter Memory Test (LMT) were significantly lower for the PCF group, and using the recommended cutting score, specificity was .984, whereas sensitivity was .640, suggesting adequate performance on cross-validation.

Coverage of the Test of Memory Malingering, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Word Memory Test on the Internet: Is test security threatened?

In forensic neuropsychological settings, maintaining test security has become critically important, especially in regard to symptom validity tests (SVTs). Coaching, which can entail providing patients or litigants with information about the cognitive sequelae of head injury, or teaching them test-taking strategies to avoid detection of symptom dissimulation has been examined experimentally in many research studies. Emerging evidence supports that coaching strategies affect psychological and neuropsychological test performance to differing degrees depending on the coaching paradigm and the tests administered. The present study sought to examine Internet coverage of SVTs because it is potentially another source of coaching, or information that is readily available. Google searches were performed on the Test of Memory Malingering, the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and the Word Memory Test. Results indicated that there is a variable amount of information available about each test that could threaten test security and validity should inappropriately interested parties find it. Steps that could be taken to improve this situation and limitations to this exploration are discussed.

Victoria Symptom Validity Test Performance in Non-Litigating Epilepsy Surgery Candidates

We report Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) performance in 120 epilepsy patients undergoing neuropsychological assessment as part of their evaluation as epilepsy surgery candidates. Patients were grouped according to their performance on hard VSVT stimuli. Scores of at least 21/24 on the hard VSVT items were classified as valid (n=86), scores of 18/24–20/24 were considered questionably valid (n=20), and scores of 17/24 and below were designated as invalid (n=14). Significant group effects were observed for WAIS-III Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, Digit Span, Rey 3x5 Memory, Selective Reminding Recognition, and Complex Figure Immediate Recall; poorer cognitive scores were associated with lower VSVT scores. Age was also related to VSVT performance, with patients older that 40 years of age (16/42) more likely to fail the VSVT (i.e., hard scores ≤ 20/24) than their younger counterparts (8/78) (p=.0006, Fisher's Exact Test). These results indicate that VSVT may identify cases of incomplete effort in patients being evaluated for strictly clinical purposes in which no external incentive to perform poorly has been identified, although the potential confound of low IQ on VSVT cannot be determined from this sample. Older patients also appear to be at increased risk for suboptimal performance, and may need additional encouragement or education regarding the need to perform to the best of their ability, and thereby maximize the likelihood of obtaining valid neuropsychological test results.

Victoria Symptom Validity Test Scores of Patients with Profound Memory Impairment: NonLitigant Case Studies

Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) scores from six nonlitigants with neurological illness accompanied by dense anterograde amnesia or severe memory impairment are presented. All of these patients obtained perfect or near perfect scores on the VSVT. These data add to the literature suggesting that the VSVT is insensitive to genuine neurologically-based memory impairment and provide an additional floor-level clinical benchmark against which to compare the performance of litigants.

The Victoria Symptom Validity Test

Abstract The Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) is a computer-administered and scored, two-alternative, forced-choice symptom validity test designed to assess the validity of a patient's purported cognitive impairments (Slick, Hopp, Strauss, & Thompson, 1997). The VSVT benefits from numerous enhancements that increase its sensitivity beyond that of other earlier symptom validity tests without increasing its administration time or decreasing its specificity. It also has the ability to generate graphs and reports that can be used to assist the jury and the court in assessing whether a plaintiff's purported cognitive impairments are valid without the requirement of an extensive understanding of binomial probability theory. The VSVT's reliability and validity is inherent in its use of binomial probability theory, which has been used in many other well known symptom validity tests, and recent studies have demonstrated the VSVT's ability to detect response bias or malingering. Therefore, the VSVT likely meet...

How'd They Do It? Malingering Strategies on Symptom Validity Tests

Twenty-five undergraduate students were instructed to feign believable impairment following a brain injury from a car accident and 27 students were told to perform like they had recovered from such an injury. Three forced-choice tests, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), and Word Memory Test (WMT) were given. Test-taking strategies were evaluated by means of a questionnaire given at the end of the test session. The results revealed that all the tasks differentiated between groups. Using conventional cut-scores, the WMT proved most efficient while the VSVT captured the most participants in the definitive below-chance category. Individuals instructed to feign injury were more likely to prepare prior to the experiment, with feigning of memory loss as the most frequently reported strategy. Regardless, preparation effort did not translate into believable performance on the tests.

Intraindividual variability as an indicator of malingering in head injury

The utility of various measures of malingering was evaluated using an analog design in which half the participants (composed of three groups: naive healthy people, professionals working with head-injured people, individuals who suffered a head injury but not currently in litigation) were asked to try their best and the remainder was asked to feign believable injury. Participants were assessed with the Reliable Digit Span (RDS) task, the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), and the Computerized Dot Counting Test (CDCT) on three separate occasions in order to determine whether repeat administration of tests improves prediction. The results indicated that regardless of an individual's experience, consideration of both level of performance (particularly on forced-choice symptom validity tasks) and intraindividual variability holds considerable promise for the detection of malingering.

Performance of Compensation Seeking and Non-Compensation Seeking Samples on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Cross-validation and Extension of a Standardization Study

Previous research suggests that the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) is effective in confirming or disconfirming the validity of a patient's reported cognitive impairments. We sought to cross-validate the findings of the VSVT standardization study, and to determine cut-off scores that are most efficient in discriminating our samples of compensation-seeking patients, primarily with mild traumatic brain injury (CS; n = 53), and non-compensation seeking patients with intractable seizures (NCS; n = 30). All patients in the NCS sample scored in the “valid” range on the VSVT difficult memory items, compared to only 58.5% of the CS sample. We also identified VSVT measures and cut-off scores maximally efficient in discriminating these samples. This study confirms previous research that non-compensation seeking patients do well on the VSVT, but that many compensation seeking patients perform poorly on this measure.

Victoria Symptom Validity Test

Abstract This study compared the performances of non-compensation-seeking (NCS; n= 151) and compensation-seeking (CS; n= 21) patients on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick, Hopp, Strauss, & Thompson, 1997), a test designed to detect feigned or exaggerated memory impairment. Despite showing comparable performances on measures of depression, intellectual, and memory ability, the CS group obtained significantly lower scores on the VSVT as compared to the NCS group. The distribution of scores for each group is provided using a three-level classification system (Valid, Questionable, or Invalid). A significant association was found between CS group membership and Questionable/Invalid performance on the VSVT. Two case examples are provided to illustrate the utility of this forced-choice memory test. These results indicate that the VSVT is an efficient, objective measure that provides quantitative data that appears to hold considerable promise in evaluating symptom validity.

Victoria Symptom Validity Test: efficiency for detecting feigned memory impairment and relationship to neuropsychological tests and MMPI-2 validity scales.

Error scores and response times from a computer-administered, forced-choice recognition test of symptom validity were evaluated for efficiency in detecting feigned memory deficits. Participants included controls (n = 95), experimental malingerers (n = 43), compensation-seeking patients (n = 206), and patients not seeking financial compensation (n = 32). Adopting a three-level cut-score system that classified participant performance as malingered, questionable, or valid greatly improved sensitivity with relatively little impact on specificity. For error scores, convergent validity was found to be adequate and divergent validity was found to be excellent. Although response times showed promise for assisting in the detection of feigned impairment, divergent and convergent validity were weaker, suggesting somewhat less utility than error scores.