{"title":"Fifteen years later: Enhancing the classification accuracy of the performance validity module of the Advanced Clinical Solutions.","authors":"Laszlo A Erdodi","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various <i>degrees of failure</i> (EI-ACS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The standard ACS model correctly classified 75-83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80-91% (VI-ACS) and 86-91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","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/10.1080/23279095.2024.2406313","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
Objective: The study was designed to evaluate the performance validity module of Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) against external criterion measures and compare two alternative aggregation methods for its five components.
Method: The ACS was evaluated against psychometrically defined criterion groups in a sample of 93 outpatients with TBI. In addition to the default method, the component performance validity tests (PVTs) were either dichotomized along a single cutoff (VI-ACS) or recoded to capture various degrees of failure (EI-ACS).
Results: The standard ACS model correctly classified 75-83% of the sample. The alternative aggregation methods produced superior overall correct classification: 80-91% (VI-ACS) and 86-91% (EI-ACS). Mild TBI was associated with higher failure rates than moderate/severe TBI. Failing just one of the five ACS components resulted in a 3- to 8-fold increase in the likelihood of failing criterion PVTs.
Conclusions: Results support the use of the standard PVT module for ACS: it is an effective measure of performance validity that is robust to moderate-to-severe TBI. Post-publication research on individual ACS components and methodological advances in PVT research provide an opportunity to enhance the overall classification accuracy of the ACS model. Passing stringent multivariate PVT cutoffs does not indicate valid performance.
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.