Barrash Joseph, Suhr Julie, Manzel Kenneth
Department of Psychology, Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa, IA 52246, USA.
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2004 Feb;26(1):125-40. doi: 10.1076/jcen.26.1.125.23928.
Three studies describe the development and validation of a new procedure (AVLTX) to detect inadequate effort or malingering by adding 60-min delayed recall/recognition trials and identifying "impaired" memory performances that are highly inconsistent with performances of brain-damaged (BD) individuals. In Study I, AVLTX performances of 25 probable malingerers (PMs) were compared with those of 43BD and 40 psychiatric patients (PSYs). Seven inconsistencies were identified and converted to scaled inconsistency scores, yielding the exaggeration index (EI). Study II reported cross-validation in an independent sample of 34 PM, 70BD and 89 PSY, showing sensitivity of 0.59 and specificities of 0.97 (BD) and 0.92 (PSY). Study III compared the diagnostic accuracy of the EI with two well-established effort assessment paradigms, exemplified by the RMTand DRT (a symptom validity test). The RMT showed excellent sensitivity and poor specificity; the DRT showed poor sensitivity and excellent specificity; the EI showed good sensitivity and excellent specificity. Adding a second delayed trial to list-learning tests can be a time-efficient procedure to detect inadequate effort.
三项研究描述了一种新程序(AVLTX)的开发与验证过程,该程序通过增加60分钟延迟回忆/识别试验,并识别与脑损伤(BD)个体表现高度不一致的“受损”记忆表现,来检测努力不足或伪装。在研究I中,将25名疑似伪装者(PMs)的AVLTX表现与43名BD患者和40名精神科患者(PSYs)的表现进行了比较。识别出七个不一致之处,并将其转换为量表不一致分数,得出夸大指数(EI)。研究II报告了在一个独立样本中的交叉验证,该样本包括34名PM、70名BD患者和89名PSY患者,显示敏感性为0.59,特异性为0.97(BD患者)和0.92(PSY患者)。研究III将EI的诊断准确性与两种成熟的努力评估范式进行了比较,以RMT和DRT(一种症状效度测试)为例。RMT显示出极好的敏感性和较差的特异性;DRT显示出较差的敏感性和极好的特异性;EI显示出良好的敏感性和极好的特异性。在列表学习测试中增加第二次延迟试验可能是一种检测努力不足的高效方法。