Multivariable utility of the Memory Integrated Language and Making Change Test.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2024.2385439
John-Christopher A Finley, Mira I Leese, Jarett E Roseberry, S Kristian Hill
{"title":"Multivariable utility of the Memory Integrated Language and Making Change Test.","authors":"John-Christopher A Finley, Mira I Leese, Jarett E Roseberry, S Kristian Hill","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2385439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent reports indicate that the Memory Integrated Language Test (MIL) and Making Change Test Abbreviated Index (MCT-AI), two web-based performance validity tests (PVTs), have good sensitivity and specificity when used independently. This study investigated whether using these PVTs together could improve the detection of invalid performance in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample. Participants were 129 adult outpatients who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation and were classified into valid (<i>n</i> = 104) or invalid (<i>n</i> = 25) performance groups based on several commonly used PVTs. Using cut scores of ≤41 on the MIL and ≥1.05 on the MCT-AI together enhanced classification accuracy, yielding an area under the curve of .84 (95% CI: .75, .93). As compared to using the MIL and MCT-AI independently, the combined use increased the sensitivity from .10-.31 to.70 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Findings also indicated that failing either the MIL or MCT-AI was associated with somewhat lower cognitive test scores, but failing both was associated with markedly lower scores. Overall, using the MIL and MCT-AI together may be an effective way to identify invalid test performance during a neuropsychological evaluation. Furthermore, pairing these tests is consistent with current practice guidelines to include multiple PVTs in a neuropsychological test battery.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2385439","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent reports indicate that the Memory Integrated Language Test (MIL) and Making Change Test Abbreviated Index (MCT-AI), two web-based performance validity tests (PVTs), have good sensitivity and specificity when used independently. This study investigated whether using these PVTs together could improve the detection of invalid performance in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample. Participants were 129 adult outpatients who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation and were classified into valid (n = 104) or invalid (n = 25) performance groups based on several commonly used PVTs. Using cut scores of ≤41 on the MIL and ≥1.05 on the MCT-AI together enhanced classification accuracy, yielding an area under the curve of .84 (95% CI: .75, .93). As compared to using the MIL and MCT-AI independently, the combined use increased the sensitivity from .10-.31 to.70 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Findings also indicated that failing either the MIL or MCT-AI was associated with somewhat lower cognitive test scores, but failing both was associated with markedly lower scores. Overall, using the MIL and MCT-AI together may be an effective way to identify invalid test performance during a neuropsychological evaluation. Furthermore, pairing these tests is consistent with current practice guidelines to include multiple PVTs in a neuropsychological test battery.

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
记忆综合语言和做出改变测试的多变量效用。
最近的报告显示,记忆综合语言测试(MIL)和做出改变测试缩略指数(MCT-AI)这两种基于网络的成绩效度测试(PVT)在单独使用时具有良好的灵敏度和特异性。本研究调查了在混合神经精神病样本中,同时使用这两种测试是否能提高对无效表现的检测。129 名成年门诊患者接受了神经心理学评估,并根据几种常用的 PVT 被分为有效表现组(104 人)和无效表现组(25 人)。将 MIL 的切分分数≤41 和 MCT-AI 的切分分数≥1.05 结合使用可提高分类准确性,曲线下面积为 .84 (95% CI: .75, .93)。与单独使用 MIL 和 MCT-AI 相比,联合使用可将灵敏度从 0.10-.31 提高到 0.70,同时保持≥.90 的特异性。研究结果还表明,MIL 或 MCT-AI 不及格与认知测试得分略低有关,但两者都不及格则与得分明显偏低有关。总之,在神经心理评估过程中,同时使用 MIL 和 MCT-AI 可能是识别无效测试表现的有效方法。此外,将这两项测试配对使用也符合当前的实践指南,即在神经心理测试中包含多项PVT。
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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
期刊最新文献
Once is enough! An analogue study on repeated validity assessment in adults with ADHD. Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III for detecting vascular dementia in Iranian patients with stroke: A secondary data analysis. Are there predictable neuropsychological impairments in persons with functional movement disorder? Associations between ADHD symptoms, executive function and frontal EEG in college students. Characteristics of cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome in patients with acute cerebellar stroke and its impact on outcome.
×
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