Jeroen J Roor, Maarten J V Peters, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Rudolf W H M Ponds
{"title":"Performance Validity Test Failure in the Clinical Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Rates.","authors":"Jeroen J Roor, Maarten J V Peters, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Rudolf W H M Ponds","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09582-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Performance validity tests (PVTs) are used to measure the validity of the obtained neuropsychological test data. However, when an individual fails a PVT, the likelihood that failure truly reflects invalid performance (i.e., the positive predictive value) depends on the base rate in the context in which the assessment takes place. Therefore, accurate base rate information is needed to guide interpretation of PVT performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the base rate of PVT failure in the clinical population (PROSPERO number: CRD42020164128). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched to identify articles published up to November 5, 2021. Main eligibility criteria were a clinical evaluation context and utilization of stand-alone and well-validated PVTs. Of the 457 articles scrutinized for eligibility, 47 were selected for systematic review and meta-analyses. Pooled base rate of PVT failure for all included studies was 16%, 95% CI [14, 19]. High heterogeneity existed among these studies (Cochran's Q = 697.97, p < .001; I<sup>2</sup> = 91%; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.08). Subgroup analysis indicated that pooled PVT failure rates varied across clinical context, presence of external incentives, clinical diagnosis, and utilized PVT. Our findings can be used for calculating clinically applied statistics (i.e., positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios) to increase the diagnostic accuracy of performance validity determination in clinical evaluation. Future research is necessary with more detailed recruitment procedures and sample descriptions to further improve the accuracy of the base rate of PVT failure in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"299-319"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10920461/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09582-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Performance validity tests (PVTs) are used to measure the validity of the obtained neuropsychological test data. However, when an individual fails a PVT, the likelihood that failure truly reflects invalid performance (i.e., the positive predictive value) depends on the base rate in the context in which the assessment takes place. Therefore, accurate base rate information is needed to guide interpretation of PVT performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the base rate of PVT failure in the clinical population (PROSPERO number: CRD42020164128). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched to identify articles published up to November 5, 2021. Main eligibility criteria were a clinical evaluation context and utilization of stand-alone and well-validated PVTs. Of the 457 articles scrutinized for eligibility, 47 were selected for systematic review and meta-analyses. Pooled base rate of PVT failure for all included studies was 16%, 95% CI [14, 19]. High heterogeneity existed among these studies (Cochran's Q = 697.97, p < .001; I2 = 91%; τ2 = 0.08). Subgroup analysis indicated that pooled PVT failure rates varied across clinical context, presence of external incentives, clinical diagnosis, and utilized PVT. Our findings can be used for calculating clinically applied statistics (i.e., positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios) to increase the diagnostic accuracy of performance validity determination in clinical evaluation. Future research is necessary with more detailed recruitment procedures and sample descriptions to further improve the accuracy of the base rate of PVT failure in clinical practice.
期刊介绍：
Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
