成功与失败模拟人模拟创伤性脑损伤的训练策略*

Robert J Kanser, L. Rapport, Jesse R Bashem, Nia Billings, R. Hanks, B. Axelrod, Justin B. Miller
{"title":"成功与失败模拟人模拟创伤性脑损伤的训练策略*","authors":"Robert J Kanser, L. Rapport, Jesse R Bashem, Nia Billings, R. Hanks, B. Axelrod, Justin B. Miller","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2016.1278040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: The present study evaluated strategies used by healthy adults coached to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation. Method: Healthy adults (n = 58) were coached to simulate TBI while completing a test battery consisting of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs), neuropsychological tests, a self-report scale of functional independence, and a debriefing survey about strategies used to feign TBI. Results: “Successful” simulators (n = 16) were classified as participants who failed 0 or 1 PVT and also scored as impaired on one or more neuropsychological index. “Unsuccessful” simulators (n = 42) failed ≥2 PVTs or passed PVTs but did not score impaired on any neuropsychological index. Compared to unsuccessful simulators, successful simulators had significantly more years of education, higher estimated IQ, and were more likely to use information provided about TBI to employ a systematic pattern of performance that targeted specific tests rather than performing poorly across the entire test battery. Conclusion: Results contribute to a limited body of research investigating strategies utilized by individuals instructed to feign neurocognitive impairment. Findings signal the importance of developing additional embedded PVTs within standard cognitive tests to assess performance validity throughout a neuropsychological assessment. Future research should consider specifically targeting embedded measures in visual tests sensitive to slowed responding (e.g. response time).","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies of successful and unsuccessful simulators coached to feign traumatic brain injury*\",\"authors\":\"Robert J Kanser, L. Rapport, Jesse R Bashem, Nia Billings, R. Hanks, B. Axelrod, Justin B. Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2016.1278040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: The present study evaluated strategies used by healthy adults coached to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation. Method: Healthy adults (n = 58) were coached to simulate TBI while completing a test battery consisting of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs), neuropsychological tests, a self-report scale of functional independence, and a debriefing survey about strategies used to feign TBI. Results: “Successful” simulators (n = 16) were classified as participants who failed 0 or 1 PVT and also scored as impaired on one or more neuropsychological index. “Unsuccessful” simulators (n = 42) failed ≥2 PVTs or passed PVTs but did not score impaired on any neuropsychological index. Compared to unsuccessful simulators, successful simulators had significantly more years of education, higher estimated IQ, and were more likely to use information provided about TBI to employ a systematic pattern of performance that targeted specific tests rather than performing poorly across the entire test battery. Conclusion: Results contribute to a limited body of research investigating strategies utilized by individuals instructed to feign neurocognitive impairment. Findings signal the importance of developing additional embedded PVTs within standard cognitive tests to assess performance validity throughout a neuropsychological assessment. Future research should consider specifically targeting embedded measures in visual tests sensitive to slowed responding (e.g. response time).\",\"PeriodicalId\":197334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1278040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1278040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

摘要目的:评价健康成人在训练中模拟创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的神经心理评估策略。方法:对58名健康成人进行模拟创伤性脑损伤训练,同时完成由多项效能效度测试(pvt)、神经心理学测试、功能独立性自述量表和关于模拟创伤性脑损伤策略的述职调查组成的测试组。结果:“成功”模拟者(n = 16)被归类为PVT失败0或1的参与者,并且在一项或多项神经心理学指标上得分为受损。“不成功”的模拟器(n = 42)不通过≥2次pvt或通过pvt,但没有任何神经心理学指标得分受损。与不成功的模拟者相比,成功的模拟者受教育年限明显更长,估计智商更高,并且更有可能利用提供的有关TBI的信息,采用针对特定测试的系统表现模式,而不是在整个测试中表现不佳。结论:这些结果有助于有限的研究机构调查被指示假装神经认知障碍的个体所使用的策略。研究结果表明,在整个神经心理学评估中,在标准认知测试中开发额外的嵌入式pvt来评估表现有效性的重要性。未来的研究应考虑专门针对视觉测试中对慢速反应敏感的嵌入测量(例如反应时间)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Strategies of successful and unsuccessful simulators coached to feign traumatic brain injury*
Abstract Objective: The present study evaluated strategies used by healthy adults coached to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation. Method: Healthy adults (n = 58) were coached to simulate TBI while completing a test battery consisting of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs), neuropsychological tests, a self-report scale of functional independence, and a debriefing survey about strategies used to feign TBI. Results: “Successful” simulators (n = 16) were classified as participants who failed 0 or 1 PVT and also scored as impaired on one or more neuropsychological index. “Unsuccessful” simulators (n = 42) failed ≥2 PVTs or passed PVTs but did not score impaired on any neuropsychological index. Compared to unsuccessful simulators, successful simulators had significantly more years of education, higher estimated IQ, and were more likely to use information provided about TBI to employ a systematic pattern of performance that targeted specific tests rather than performing poorly across the entire test battery. Conclusion: Results contribute to a limited body of research investigating strategies utilized by individuals instructed to feign neurocognitive impairment. Findings signal the importance of developing additional embedded PVTs within standard cognitive tests to assess performance validity throughout a neuropsychological assessment. Future research should consider specifically targeting embedded measures in visual tests sensitive to slowed responding (e.g. response time).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Gender and Autism Program: A novel clinical service model for gender-diverse/transgender autistic youth and young adults. Neuropsychological functioning of pediatric patients with long COVID. A roadmap for psychometrist training: Moving from condemnation and confusion to cooperation and collaborationA Neuropsychologist’s Guide to Training Psychometrists: Promoting Competence in Psychological Testing. edited by Ghilain, C. S. New York: Routledge. (2021), ­160 pages. ISBN: 036756498X. $140.00 (hbk) Introductory editorial to the special issue: Assessment and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related clinical decision making in neuropsychological practice Affirmative neuropsychological practice with transgender and gender diverse individuals and communities.
×
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