O'Bryant Sid E, Lucas John A
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Department of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Lubbock, TX 794300, USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2006 Sep;20(3):533-40. doi: 10.1080/13854040590967568.
Recent years have witnessed an explosion in the amount of research literature dedicated to the identification of symptom exaggeration and/or malingering in neuropsychological assessments. Additionally, there is now a growing literature devoted to estimating the base rates of symptom exaggeration/malingering in a range of populations and settings. However, very little literature has been devoted to estimating the positive predictive value (PPV) or negative predictive value (NPV) of these assessment devices and/or strategies. The current project was conducted to provide an illustrative example of how to use the research literature to calculate both PPV and NPV in everyday clinical practice. When the Word Memory Test (WMT) was used as the "gold standard" to which the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was compared, the TOMM achieved very high PPV (.98) and acceptable NPV (.78). How to incorporate the strategy used into clinical practice is discussed.
近年来，致力于在神经心理学评估中识别症状夸大和/或诈病的研究文献数量激增。此外，现在有越来越多的文献致力于估计一系列人群和环境中症状夸大/诈病的基础比率。然而，很少有文献致力于估计这些评估工具和/或策略的阳性预测值（PPV）或阴性预测值（NPV）。当前项目旨在提供一个示例，说明如何在日常临床实践中利用研究文献来计算PPV和NPV。当将单词记忆测试（WMT）用作与记忆伪装测试（TOMM）进行比较的“金标准”时，TOMM获得了非常高的PPV（.98）和可接受的NPV（.78）。文中还讨论了如何将所使用的策略纳入临床实践。
