Validity of the Groningen Effort Test in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy.

IF 2.1 4区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1093/arclin/acae025

Fabienne I M van Vliet, Henrita P van Schothorst, Birgit H P M Donker-Cools, Frederieke G Schaafsma, Rudolf W H M Ponds, Gert J Geurtsen

{"title":"Validity of the Groningen Effort Test in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy.","authors":"Fabienne I M van Vliet, Henrita P van Schothorst, Birgit H P M Donker-Cools, Frederieke G Schaafsma, Rudolf W H M Ponds, Gert J Geurtsen","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The use of performance validity tests (PVTs) in a neuropsychological assessment to determine indications of invalid performance has been a common practice for over a decade. Most PVTs are memory-based; therefore, the Groningen Effort Test (GET), a non-memory-based PVT, has been developed.Objectives: This study aimed to validate the GET in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy (CSE) using the criterion standard of 2PVTs. A second goal was to determine diagnostic accuracy for GET.Method: Sixty patients with suspected CSE referred for NPA were included. The GET was compared to the criterion standard of 2PVTs based on the Test of Memory Malingering and the Amsterdam Short Term Memory Test.Results: The frequency of invalid performance using the GET was significantly higher compared to the criterion of 2PVTs (51.7% vs. 20.0% respectively; p < 0.001). For the GET index, the sensitivity was 75% and the specificity was 54%, with a Youden's Index of 27.Conclusion: The GET showed significantly more invalid performance compared to the 2PVTs criterion suggesting a high number of false positives. The general accepted minimum norm of specificity for PVTs of >90% was not met. Therefore, the GET is of limited use in clinical practice with suspected CSE patients.","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"809-816"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11504684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of performance validity tests (PVTs) in a neuropsychological assessment to determine indications of invalid performance has been a common practice for over a decade. Most PVTs are memory-based; therefore, the Groningen Effort Test (GET), a non-memory-based PVT, has been developed.

Objectives: This study aimed to validate the GET in patients with suspected chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy (CSE) using the criterion standard of 2PVTs. A second goal was to determine diagnostic accuracy for GET.

Method: Sixty patients with suspected CSE referred for NPA were included. The GET was compared to the criterion standard of 2PVTs based on the Test of Memory Malingering and the Amsterdam Short Term Memory Test.

Results: The frequency of invalid performance using the GET was significantly higher compared to the criterion of 2PVTs (51.7% vs. 20.0% respectively; p < 0.001). For the GET index, the sensitivity was 75% and the specificity was 54%, with a Youden's Index of 27.

Conclusion: The GET showed significantly more invalid performance compared to the 2PVTs criterion suggesting a high number of false positives. The general accepted minimum norm of specificity for PVTs of >90% was not met. Therefore, the GET is of limited use in clinical practice with suspected CSE patients.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

格罗宁根努力试验在疑似慢性溶剂型脑病患者中的有效性。

前言在神经心理评估中使用表现效度测验（PVT）来确定无效表现的迹象，是十多年来的一种常见做法。大多数表现效度测验都以记忆为基础，因此，格罗宁根努力测验（GET）这种不以记忆为基础的表现效度测验应运而生：本研究的目的是在疑似慢性溶剂诱发脑病（CSE）患者中验证 GET，采用的标准是 2 次 PVT。第二个目标是确定 GET 的诊断准确性：方法：纳入 60 名转诊至 NPA 的疑似 CSE 患者。方法：纳入 60 名转诊至 NPA 的疑似 CSE 患者，将 GET 与基于记忆错觉测试（Test of Memory Malingering）和阿姆斯特丹短期记忆测试（Amsterdam Short Term Memory Test）的 2PVT 标准进行比较：结果：与 2PVTs 标准相比，GET 的无效表现频率明显更高（分别为 51.7% 对 20.0%；P 结论：GET 的无效表现频率明显高于 2PVTs 标准（分别为 51.7% 对 20.0%；P 结论：GET 的无效表现频率明显高于 2PVTs 标准：与 2PVTs 标准相比，GET 的无效表现明显较多，这表明存在大量假阳性。一般公认的 PVT 最低特异性标准为 >90%，但该标准并未达到。因此，GET 在疑似 CSE 患者的临床实践中作用有限。

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

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 医学-心理学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

358

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.