性能效度测试中不同的失败标准会影响认知结果的解释。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-13 DOI:10.1037/neu0000857
Savanna M Tierney, Zinat Taiwo, Tabina K Choudhury, Sara M Lippa, Maya Troyanskaya, Nicholas J Pastorek, Brian Miller, Jennifer Romesser, Anita Sim
{"title":"性能效度测试中不同的失败标准会影响认知结果的解释。","authors":"Savanna M Tierney, Zinat Taiwo, Tabina K Choudhury, Sara M Lippa, Maya Troyanskaya, Nicholas J Pastorek, Brian Miller, Jennifer Romesser, Anita Sim","doi":"10.1037/neu0000857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study examined the effects of applying various performance validity tests (PVT) failure criteria on the relationship between cognitive outcomes and posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptomology.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>One hundred and ninety-nine veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive tests, PVTs, and self-report measures of PTS symptoms and symptom exaggeration. Normative T scores of select cognitive tests were averaged into memory, attention/processing speed, and executive functioning composites. Separate one way analyses of variance assessed differences among high PTS (<i>n</i> = 140) versus low PTS (<i>n</i> = 59) groups and were repeated excluding participants based on varying combinations of PVT failure criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When no PVTs were considered, the high PTS group demonstrated worse performance across all three cognitive domains. Excluding those who failed two or more stand-alone, or two or more embedded validity measures resulted in group differences across all cognitive composites. When participants were excluded based on failure of any one embedded and any one stand-alone PVT measure combined, the high PTS group performed worse on the executive functioning and attention/processing speed composites. The remaining three proposed methods to control for performance validity resulted in null PTS-cognition relationships. Results remained largely consistent after controlling for symptom exaggeration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods of defining PVT failure can greatly influence differences in cognitive function between groups defined by PTS symptom levels. Findings highlight the importance of considering performance validity when interpreting cognitive data and warrant future investigation of PVT failure criteria in other conditions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":19205,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology","volume":"37 1","pages":"93-103"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019529/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Varying failure criteria on performance validity tests influences interpretation of cognitive outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Savanna M Tierney, Zinat Taiwo, Tabina K Choudhury, Sara M Lippa, Maya Troyanskaya, Nicholas J Pastorek, Brian Miller, Jennifer Romesser, Anita Sim\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/neu0000857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study examined the effects of applying various performance validity tests (PVT) failure criteria on the relationship between cognitive outcomes and posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptomology.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>One hundred and ninety-nine veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive tests, PVTs, and self-report measures of PTS symptoms and symptom exaggeration. Normative T scores of select cognitive tests were averaged into memory, attention/processing speed, and executive functioning composites. Separate one way analyses of variance assessed differences among high PTS (<i>n</i> = 140) versus low PTS (<i>n</i> = 59) groups and were repeated excluding participants based on varying combinations of PVT failure criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When no PVTs were considered, the high PTS group demonstrated worse performance across all three cognitive domains. Excluding those who failed two or more stand-alone, or two or more embedded validity measures resulted in group differences across all cognitive composites. When participants were excluded based on failure of any one embedded and any one stand-alone PVT measure combined, the high PTS group performed worse on the executive functioning and attention/processing speed composites. The remaining three proposed methods to control for performance validity resulted in null PTS-cognition relationships. Results remained largely consistent after controlling for symptom exaggeration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods of defining PVT failure can greatly influence differences in cognitive function between groups defined by PTS symptom levels. Findings highlight the importance of considering performance validity when interpreting cognitive data and warrant future investigation of PVT failure criteria in other conditions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"93-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019529/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000857\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000857","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究探讨了各种成绩效度测试(PVT)失败标准对认知结果与创伤后应激反应(PTS)症状之间关系的影响:本研究探讨了采用各种成绩效度测试(PVT)失败标准对认知结果与创伤后应激反应(PTS)症状之间关系的影响:199名有轻度脑外伤病史的退伍军人接受了临床评估,他们完成了认知测试、PVT以及创伤后应激反应症状和症状夸大的自我报告测量。所选认知测试的标准 T 分数被平均分为记忆、注意力/处理速度和执行功能三部分。分别对高 PTS 组(n = 140)和低 PTS 组(n = 59)进行单因素方差分析,并根据 PVT 失败标准的不同组合重复排除参与者:如果不考虑 PVT,高 PTS 组在所有三个认知领域的表现都较差。排除两个或更多独立或两个或更多嵌入式有效性测量失败的参与者后,所有认知综合领域都出现了组间差异。如果根据任何一项嵌入式和任何一项独立 PVT 测量的失败情况来排除参与者,则高 PTS 组在执行功能和注意力/处理速度方面的综合表现较差。其余三种控制表现效度的方法均导致 PTS 与认知之间的关系无效。在对症状夸大进行控制后,结果基本保持一致:结论:定义 PVT 失败的方法会在很大程度上影响以 PTS 症状水平定义的群体之间认知功能的差异。研究结果凸显了在解释认知数据时考虑表现有效性的重要性,并为今后研究其他情况下的 PVT 失败标准提供了依据。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Varying failure criteria on performance validity tests influences interpretation of cognitive outcomes.

Objective: The present study examined the effects of applying various performance validity tests (PVT) failure criteria on the relationship between cognitive outcomes and posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptomology.

Method: One hundred and ninety-nine veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive tests, PVTs, and self-report measures of PTS symptoms and symptom exaggeration. Normative T scores of select cognitive tests were averaged into memory, attention/processing speed, and executive functioning composites. Separate one way analyses of variance assessed differences among high PTS (n = 140) versus low PTS (n = 59) groups and were repeated excluding participants based on varying combinations of PVT failure criteria.

Results: When no PVTs were considered, the high PTS group demonstrated worse performance across all three cognitive domains. Excluding those who failed two or more stand-alone, or two or more embedded validity measures resulted in group differences across all cognitive composites. When participants were excluded based on failure of any one embedded and any one stand-alone PVT measure combined, the high PTS group performed worse on the executive functioning and attention/processing speed composites. The remaining three proposed methods to control for performance validity resulted in null PTS-cognition relationships. Results remained largely consistent after controlling for symptom exaggeration.

Conclusions: Methods of defining PVT failure can greatly influence differences in cognitive function between groups defined by PTS symptom levels. Findings highlight the importance of considering performance validity when interpreting cognitive data and warrant future investigation of PVT failure criteria in other conditions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology publishes original, empirical research; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and theoretical articles on the relation between brain and human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral function.
期刊最新文献
Capturing cognitive capacity in the everyday environment across a continuum of cognitive decline using a smartwatch n-back task and ecological momentary assessment. Dimensional attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and executive functioning in adolescence: A multi-informant, population-based twin study. Affliction class moderates the dementing impact of adipokines. Metabolic syndrome and mobility dysfunction in older adults with and without histories of traumatic brain injury: The mediating role of cognition. Getting oriented: Redefining attention deficits in Parkinson's disease.
×
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