Greve Kevin W, Curtis Kelly L, Bianchini Kevin J, Ord Jonathan S
Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans-- Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA.
Assessment. 2009 Sep;16(3):237-48. doi: 10.1177/1073191108326227. Epub 2008 Dec 19.
This two-part study sought to determine the equivalence of the California Verbal Learning Tests (CVLT-1 and CVLT-2) in the detection of malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and chronic pain. Part 1 compared a variety of scores from the two versions in carefully matched patient groups. Part 2 used criterion groups (known-groups) methodology to examine the relative rates of false positive (FP) errors across the two versions. Participants were 442 TBI (CVLT-1 = 310; CVLT-2 = 132) and 378 chronic pain patients (CVLT-1 = 250; CVLT-2 = 128). Overall, the CVLT-2 was more difficult than the CVLT-1, with the chronic pain patients showing larger version effects than the TBI patients. The two versions of the CVLT were equally accurate in detecting malingering in TBI and chronic pain. However, they were not interchangeable. The use of CVLT-1 cutoffs with the CVLT-2 may result in an increased risk of FP error. Appropriate cutoff adjustment in clinical practice is recommended.
这项分为两部分的研究旨在确定加利福尼亚言语学习测试（CVLT - 1和CVLT - 2）在检测创伤性脑损伤（TBI）和慢性疼痛中的伪装方面的等效性。第一部分在精心匹配的患者组中比较了两个版本的各种分数。第二部分使用标准组（已知组）方法来检查两个版本中假阳性（FP）错误的相对发生率。参与者包括442名TBI患者（CVLT - 1 = 310；CVLT - 2 = 132）和378名慢性疼痛患者（CVLT - 1 = 250；CVLT - 2 = 128）。总体而言，CVLT - 2比CVLT - 1更难，慢性疼痛患者的版本效应比TBI患者更大。CVLT的两个版本在检测TBI和慢性疼痛中的伪装方面同样准确。然而，它们不可互换。将CVLT - 1的临界值用于CVLT - 2可能会增加FP错误的风险。建议在临床实践中进行适当的临界值调整。
