Classification of performance validity and symptom validity using the Trauma Symptom Inventory-2.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2022-11-15 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2141632
Arlin K Pachet, Darnel N Malcolm, Irene Liu, Cassandra Brown, Sarah Vanderveen, Aiko Tan
{"title":"Classification of performance validity and symptom validity using the Trauma Symptom Inventory-2.","authors":"Arlin K Pachet, Darnel N Malcolm, Irene Liu, Cassandra Brown, Sarah Vanderveen, Aiko Tan","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2022.2141632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Trauma Symptom Inventory-Second Edition (TSI-2) is garnering research interest as a symptom validity test in the evaluation of trauma-related disorders. However, there has been limited empirical validation of its validity scales in clinical and forensic real-world settings. This study evaluated the ability of the TSI-2 Atypical Response (ATR) scale to discriminate response bias in cognitive performance and symptom reporting in a large sample of disability and compensation-seeking claimants. This retrospective chart review included 296 adults with a known history of trauma exposure or claimed trauma-related psychological injury who underwent neuropsychological and/or comprehensive psychological assessment in a private neuropsychology clinic. The discriminability of the ATR scale to classify credible versus non-credible cognitive profiles and symptom reporting were analyzed by AUC-ROCs. Overall, the ATR scale demonstrated poor discriminability of assessment validity based on the Word Memory Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. The ATR scale had fair discriminatory ability of only one of the over-reporting scales (F-r), with an ROC area of .73, <i>p</i> = .001. However, the test publisher's proposed ATR cut-offs of ≥8 for screening, research, and normal groups, and ≥15 in forensic and clinical settings revealed significant issues with sensitivity and specificity. These results suggest that the TSI-2 should be paired with other established performance validity and symptom validity tests in clinical assessments and not be used as the primary or sole indicator of assessment validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50741,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","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/10.1080/23279095.2022.2141632","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Trauma Symptom Inventory-Second Edition (TSI-2) is garnering research interest as a symptom validity test in the evaluation of trauma-related disorders. However, there has been limited empirical validation of its validity scales in clinical and forensic real-world settings. This study evaluated the ability of the TSI-2 Atypical Response (ATR) scale to discriminate response bias in cognitive performance and symptom reporting in a large sample of disability and compensation-seeking claimants. This retrospective chart review included 296 adults with a known history of trauma exposure or claimed trauma-related psychological injury who underwent neuropsychological and/or comprehensive psychological assessment in a private neuropsychology clinic. The discriminability of the ATR scale to classify credible versus non-credible cognitive profiles and symptom reporting were analyzed by AUC-ROCs. Overall, the ATR scale demonstrated poor discriminability of assessment validity based on the Word Memory Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. The ATR scale had fair discriminatory ability of only one of the over-reporting scales (F-r), with an ROC area of .73, p = .001. However, the test publisher's proposed ATR cut-offs of ≥8 for screening, research, and normal groups, and ≥15 in forensic and clinical settings revealed significant issues with sensitivity and specificity. These results suggest that the TSI-2 should be paired with other established performance validity and symptom validity tests in clinical assessments and not be used as the primary or sole indicator of assessment validity.

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
使用创伤症状量表-2对表现效度和症状效度进行分类。
创伤症状量表-第二版(TSI-2)作为评估创伤相关疾病的症状有效性测试,正在引起研究人员的兴趣。然而,在临床和法医实际环境中对其有效性量表的实证验证却很有限。本研究评估了 TSI-2 非典型反应量表(ATR)对认知表现和症状报告中的反应偏差进行判别的能力,该量表的样本为大量残疾和寻求赔偿的索赔者。这项回顾性病历审查包括 296 名已知有创伤暴露史或声称有创伤相关心理损伤的成年人,他们在一家私人神经心理学诊所接受了神经心理学和/或综合心理评估。通过AUC-ROCs分析了ATR量表对可信与不可信认知概况和症状报告的区分度。总体而言,根据单词记忆测试、维多利亚症状有效性测试和明尼苏达多相人格量表-2-重组表,ATR量表在评估有效性方面表现出了较差的辨别能力。ATR 量表仅对其中一个过度报告量表(F-r)具有较好的判别能力,其 ROC 面积为 0.73,p = 0.001。然而,测试出版商提出的 ATR 临界值在筛查、研究和正常群体中为≥8,在法医和临床环境中为≥15,这揭示了灵敏度和特异性方面的重大问题。这些结果表明,在临床评估中,TSI-2 应与其他已确立的表现效度和症状效度测试搭配使用,而不应作为评估效度的主要或唯一指标。
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
自引率
11.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Detecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Comparative analysis of freestanding and embedded performance validity tests ERP biomarkers for go/no-go tasks to detect potential cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older adults Comparison of the GAD-7 and ImPACT symptom cluster scores in measuring anxiety among college athletes. Psychometric validation of the Italian Self-Report Symptoms inventory (SRSI): Factor structure, construct validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Exploring symptomatology and innovative treatment modalities for prefrontal cortex lesions: a systematic review.
×
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