Cross-validation of the Trail Making Test as a non-memory-based embedded performance validity test among veterans with and without cognitive impairment.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-25 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2023.2287784
Ashley M Peak, Janice C Marceaux, Cammy Chicota-Carroll, Jason R Soble
{"title":"Cross-validation of the Trail Making Test as a non-memory-based embedded performance validity test among veterans with and without cognitive impairment.","authors":"Ashley M Peak, Janice C Marceaux, Cammy Chicota-Carroll, Jason R Soble","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2023.2287784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study cross-validated multiple Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B scores as non-memory-based embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) for detecting invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans with and without cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data were collected from a demographically and diagnostically diverse mixed clinical sample of 100 veterans undergoing outpatient neuropsychological evaluation at a Southwestern VA Medical Center. As part of a larger battery of neuropsychological tests, all veterans completed TMT A and B and four independent criterion PVTs, which were used to classify veterans into valid (<i>n</i> = 75) and invalid (<i>n</i> = 25) groups. Among the valid group 47% (<i>n</i> = 35) were cognitively impaired.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the overall sample, all embedded PVTs derived from TMT A and B raw and demographically corrected T-scores significantly differed between validity groups (ηp<sup>2</sup> = .21-.31) with significant areas under the curve (AUCs) of .72-.78 and 32-48% sensitivity (≥91% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. When subdivided by cognitive impairment status (i.e., valid-unimpaired vs. invalid; valid-impaired vs. invalid), all TMT scores yielded significant AUCs of .80-.88 and 56%-72% sensitivity (≥90% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. Among veterans with cognitive impairment, neither TMT A or B raw scores were able to significantly differentiate the invalid from the valid-cognitively impaired group; however, demographically corrected T-scores were able to significantly differentiate groups but had poor classification accuracy (AUCs = .66-.68) and reduced sensitivity of 28%-44% (≥91% specificity).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Embedded PVTs derived from TMT Parts A and B raw and T-scores were able to accurately differentiate valid from invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans without cognitive impairment; however, the demographically corrected T-scores generally were more robust and consistent with prior studies compared to raw scores. By contrast, TMT embedded PVTs had poor accuracy and low sensitivity among veterans with cognitive impairment, suggesting limited utility as PVTs among populations with cognitive dysfunction.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2287784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study cross-validated multiple Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B scores as non-memory-based embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) for detecting invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans with and without cognitive impairment.

Method: Data were collected from a demographically and diagnostically diverse mixed clinical sample of 100 veterans undergoing outpatient neuropsychological evaluation at a Southwestern VA Medical Center. As part of a larger battery of neuropsychological tests, all veterans completed TMT A and B and four independent criterion PVTs, which were used to classify veterans into valid (n = 75) and invalid (n = 25) groups. Among the valid group 47% (n = 35) were cognitively impaired.

Results: Among the overall sample, all embedded PVTs derived from TMT A and B raw and demographically corrected T-scores significantly differed between validity groups (ηp2 = .21-.31) with significant areas under the curve (AUCs) of .72-.78 and 32-48% sensitivity (≥91% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. When subdivided by cognitive impairment status (i.e., valid-unimpaired vs. invalid; valid-impaired vs. invalid), all TMT scores yielded significant AUCs of .80-.88 and 56%-72% sensitivity (≥90% specificity) at optimal cut-scores. Among veterans with cognitive impairment, neither TMT A or B raw scores were able to significantly differentiate the invalid from the valid-cognitively impaired group; however, demographically corrected T-scores were able to significantly differentiate groups but had poor classification accuracy (AUCs = .66-.68) and reduced sensitivity of 28%-44% (≥91% specificity).

Conclusions: Embedded PVTs derived from TMT Parts A and B raw and T-scores were able to accurately differentiate valid from invalid neuropsychological performance among veterans without cognitive impairment; however, the demographically corrected T-scores generally were more robust and consistent with prior studies compared to raw scores. By contrast, TMT embedded PVTs had poor accuracy and low sensitivity among veterans with cognitive impairment, suggesting limited utility as PVTs among populations with cognitive dysfunction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
造径测验在有认知障碍和无认知障碍退伍军人中作为非记忆基础嵌入效度测验的交叉验证。
目的:本研究交叉验证了TMT (multiple Trail Making Test, TMT) A部分和B部分分数作为非基于记忆的嵌入效度测试(PVTs)对有认知障碍和无认知障碍退伍军人无效神经心理表现的检测效果。方法:对在西南退伍军人医疗中心接受门诊神经心理学评估的100名退伍军人进行人口统计学和诊断多样化的混合临床样本收集数据。作为一组更大的神经心理测试的一部分,所有退伍军人都完成了TMT a和B以及四个独立标准的pvt,这些标准用于将退伍军人分为有效(n = 75)和无效(n = 25)组。有效组中47% (n = 35)存在认知障碍。结果:在整个样本中,所有由TMT A和B原始和人口统计学校正的t评分得出的嵌入pts在效度组之间存在显著差异(ηp2 = 0.21 - 0.31),曲线下面积(aus)为0.72 -。78和32-48%的灵敏度(≥91%的特异性)在最佳切割评分。当按认知损伤状态细分时(即有效-未受损vs无效;有效受损vs无效),所有TMT评分的auc均为0.80 -。最佳切割评分的敏感性为88%和56%-72%(特异性≥90%)。在有认知障碍的退伍军人中,TMT A和B原始评分均不能显著区分无效组和有效组;然而,人口统计学校正的t评分能够显著区分组,但分类准确性较差(auc = 0.66 - 0.68),敏感性降低28%-44%(特异性≥91%)。结论:基于TMT A、B部分原始和t评分的嵌入式pvt能够准确区分无认知障碍退伍军人的有效和无效神经心理表现;然而,与原始分数相比,人口统计学校正的t分数通常更稳健,与先前的研究更一致。相比之下,TMT嵌入的pvt在认知障碍退伍军人中的准确性和敏感性较差,表明pvt在认知功能障碍人群中的效用有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Psychological correlates of the good old days bias in mild traumatic brain injury. A tale of two constructs: confirmatory factor analysis of performance and symptom validity tests. Toward a cross-cultural understanding of intraindividual variability metrics. Prospective memory is associated with aspects of disability and quality of life in people with epilepsy. Patterns of prospective memory errors differ in persons with multiple sclerosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1