Megan Morrison-Steele, M Franci Crepeau-Hobson, Jennifer J Kirk, Selina McLaughlin, John W Kirk
{"title":"在不同的临床儿科样本中比较 MVP 和 MSVT 的性能。","authors":"Megan Morrison-Steele, M Franci Crepeau-Hobson, Jennifer J Kirk, Selina McLaughlin, John W Kirk","doi":"10.1080/21622965.2022.2121653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) and Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) are performance validity tests (PVTs) used to identify potential noncredible test performance during psychological evaluations. This study sought to examine the agreement between MVP and MSVT pass rates, as well as to determine if there are differences in MVP pass rates when using the cutoff score in the MVP professional manual compared with the experimental cutoff score of <31. Via retrospective review of records, 106 clients at a private neuropsychological clinic who had been given the MVP and the MSVT were identified. Results indicated that only one client met the manual cutoff scores, compared to 20 clients who failed the MSVT, raising concerns regarding the sensitivity of the MVP. Utilizing the receiver operator characteristic (ROC), curve analyses indicated fair discriminability of the MVP for the 106 participants (AUC = .717) with acceptable sensitivity (.50) and specificity (.92) for an MVP total score cutoff of <31. These findings support the utility of the experimental cut score in improving the sensitivity while maintaining adequate specificity in a clinically mixed population.</p>","PeriodicalId":8047,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology: Child","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of MVP and MSVT performance among a diverse clinical pediatric sample.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Morrison-Steele, M Franci Crepeau-Hobson, Jennifer J Kirk, Selina McLaughlin, John W Kirk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21622965.2022.2121653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) and Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) are performance validity tests (PVTs) used to identify potential noncredible test performance during psychological evaluations. This study sought to examine the agreement between MVP and MSVT pass rates, as well as to determine if there are differences in MVP pass rates when using the cutoff score in the MVP professional manual compared with the experimental cutoff score of <31. Via retrospective review of records, 106 clients at a private neuropsychological clinic who had been given the MVP and the MSVT were identified. Results indicated that only one client met the manual cutoff scores, compared to 20 clients who failed the MSVT, raising concerns regarding the sensitivity of the MVP. Utilizing the receiver operator characteristic (ROC), curve analyses indicated fair discriminability of the MVP for the 106 participants (AUC = .717) with acceptable sensitivity (.50) and specificity (.92) for an MVP total score cutoff of <31. These findings support the utility of the experimental cut score in improving the sensitivity while maintaining adequate specificity in a clinically mixed population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology: Child\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology: Child\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2022.2121653\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology: Child","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2022.2121653","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of MVP and MSVT performance among a diverse clinical pediatric sample.
The Memory Validity Profile (MVP) and Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) are performance validity tests (PVTs) used to identify potential noncredible test performance during psychological evaluations. This study sought to examine the agreement between MVP and MSVT pass rates, as well as to determine if there are differences in MVP pass rates when using the cutoff score in the MVP professional manual compared with the experimental cutoff score of <31. Via retrospective review of records, 106 clients at a private neuropsychological clinic who had been given the MVP and the MSVT were identified. Results indicated that only one client met the manual cutoff scores, compared to 20 clients who failed the MSVT, raising concerns regarding the sensitivity of the MVP. Utilizing the receiver operator characteristic (ROC), curve analyses indicated fair discriminability of the MVP for the 106 participants (AUC = .717) with acceptable sensitivity (.50) and specificity (.92) for an MVP total score cutoff of <31. These findings support the utility of the experimental cut score in improving the sensitivity while maintaining adequate specificity in a clinically mixed population.
期刊介绍:
Applied Neuropsychology: Child publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in children. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of child 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.