Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance in a heterogenous clinical sample

David W. Loring, Glenn J. Larrabee, Gregory P Lee, Kimford J. Meador

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We retrospectively reviewed Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) in 374 patients who underwent neuropsychological assessment in an academic hospital-based practice. Patients were classified as either non-TBI clinically referred (generally patients referred from neurology, neurosurgery, or medicine), clinically referred TBI (no known external financial incentive), and non-clinical referrals (e.g., attorney-referred, Worker's Compensation). Three patients were not classified into any group and considered separately. Intentional response distortion, defined as statistically less than chance performance on hard VST items, was present in only 1/306 (0.3%) clinically referred non-TBI patients, and no clinically referred TBI patient obtained scores significantly less than chance on this measure. One additional clinically referred patient with a non-neurologic diagnosis who was subsequently found to be pursuing a disability claim also performed worse than chance. In contrast, 5/25 patients (20%) referred by attorneys or otherwise deemed a priori to be at-risk for deficit exaggeration performed less than chance. These data suggest that intentional response distortion in patients referred for non-forensic neuropsychological evaluation is rare. Performances by specific diagnosis using different classification criteria are also presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)522-531
Number of pages10
JournalClinical Neuropsychologist
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2007

Fingerprint

Victoria
Lawyers
Test Validity
Performance Test
Workers' Compensation
Neurosurgery
Neurology
Motivation
Referral and Consultation
Medicine

Keywords

  • Malingering
  • Symptom Validity Testing
  • Victoria Symptom Validity Test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance in a heterogenous clinical sample. / Loring, David W.; Larrabee, Glenn J.; Lee, Gregory P; Meador, Kimford J.

In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, Vol. 21, No. 3, 01.05.2007, p. 522-531.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Loring, David W. ; Larrabee, Glenn J. ; Lee, Gregory P ; Meador, Kimford J. / Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance in a heterogenous clinical sample. In: Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2007 ; Vol. 21, No. 3. pp. 522-531.
@article{dd3161bc0f794c7ca591b3630fc8a6da,
title = "Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance in a heterogenous clinical sample",
abstract = "We retrospectively reviewed Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) in 374 patients who underwent neuropsychological assessment in an academic hospital-based practice. Patients were classified as either non-TBI clinically referred (generally patients referred from neurology, neurosurgery, or medicine), clinically referred TBI (no known external financial incentive), and non-clinical referrals (e.g., attorney-referred, Worker's Compensation). Three patients were not classified into any group and considered separately. Intentional response distortion, defined as statistically less than chance performance on hard VST items, was present in only 1/306 (0.3{\%}) clinically referred non-TBI patients, and no clinically referred TBI patient obtained scores significantly less than chance on this measure. One additional clinically referred patient with a non-neurologic diagnosis who was subsequently found to be pursuing a disability claim also performed worse than chance. In contrast, 5/25 patients (20{\%}) referred by attorneys or otherwise deemed a priori to be at-risk for deficit exaggeration performed less than chance. These data suggest that intentional response distortion in patients referred for non-forensic neuropsychological evaluation is rare. Performances by specific diagnosis using different classification criteria are also presented.",
keywords = "Malingering, Symptom Validity Testing, Victoria Symptom Validity Test",
author = "Loring, {David W.} and Larrabee, {Glenn J.} and Lee, {Gregory P} and Meador, {Kimford J.}",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13854040600611384",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "522--531",
journal = "Clinical Neuropsychologist",
issn = "0920-1637",
publisher = "Swets & Zeitlinger",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Victoria Symptom Validity Test performance in a heterogenous clinical sample

AU - Loring, David W.

AU - Larrabee, Glenn J.

AU - Lee, Gregory P

AU - Meador, Kimford J.

PY - 2007/5/1

Y1 - 2007/5/1

N2 - We retrospectively reviewed Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) in 374 patients who underwent neuropsychological assessment in an academic hospital-based practice. Patients were classified as either non-TBI clinically referred (generally patients referred from neurology, neurosurgery, or medicine), clinically referred TBI (no known external financial incentive), and non-clinical referrals (e.g., attorney-referred, Worker's Compensation). Three patients were not classified into any group and considered separately. Intentional response distortion, defined as statistically less than chance performance on hard VST items, was present in only 1/306 (0.3%) clinically referred non-TBI patients, and no clinically referred TBI patient obtained scores significantly less than chance on this measure. One additional clinically referred patient with a non-neurologic diagnosis who was subsequently found to be pursuing a disability claim also performed worse than chance. In contrast, 5/25 patients (20%) referred by attorneys or otherwise deemed a priori to be at-risk for deficit exaggeration performed less than chance. These data suggest that intentional response distortion in patients referred for non-forensic neuropsychological evaluation is rare. Performances by specific diagnosis using different classification criteria are also presented.

AB - We retrospectively reviewed Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) in 374 patients who underwent neuropsychological assessment in an academic hospital-based practice. Patients were classified as either non-TBI clinically referred (generally patients referred from neurology, neurosurgery, or medicine), clinically referred TBI (no known external financial incentive), and non-clinical referrals (e.g., attorney-referred, Worker's Compensation). Three patients were not classified into any group and considered separately. Intentional response distortion, defined as statistically less than chance performance on hard VST items, was present in only 1/306 (0.3%) clinically referred non-TBI patients, and no clinically referred TBI patient obtained scores significantly less than chance on this measure. One additional clinically referred patient with a non-neurologic diagnosis who was subsequently found to be pursuing a disability claim also performed worse than chance. In contrast, 5/25 patients (20%) referred by attorneys or otherwise deemed a priori to be at-risk for deficit exaggeration performed less than chance. These data suggest that intentional response distortion in patients referred for non-forensic neuropsychological evaluation is rare. Performances by specific diagnosis using different classification criteria are also presented.

KW - Malingering

KW - Symptom Validity Testing

KW - Victoria Symptom Validity Test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247153325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247153325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13854040600611384

DO - 10.1080/13854040600611384

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 522

EP - 531

JO - Clinical Neuropsychologist

JF - Clinical Neuropsychologist

SN - 0920-1637

IS - 3

ER -