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 language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 522-531 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Clinical Neuropsychologist |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - May 2007 |
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