Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and University of British Columbia.
Psychol Assess. 2013 Jun;25(2):339-52. doi: 10.1037/a0030915. Epub 2012 Dec 17.
The purpose of this study is to examine the clinical utility of the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) as an embedded marker of poor effort in military personnel undergoing neuropsychological evaluations following traumatic brain injury. Participants were 158 U.S. military service members divided into 3 groups on the basis of brain injury severity and performance (pass/fail) on 2 symptom validity tests: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI)-Pass (n = 87), MTBI-Fail (n = 42), and severe traumatic brain injury (STBI)-Pass (n = 29). The MTBI-Fail group performed worse on the majority of CPT-II measures compared with both the MTBI-Pass and STBI-Pass groups. When comparing the MTBI-Fail group and MTBI-Pass groups, the most accurate measure for identifying poor effort was the Commission T score. When selected measures were combined (i.e., Omissions, Commissions, and Perseverations), there was a very small increase in sensitivity (from .26 to .29). When comparing the MTBI-Fail group and STBI-Pass groups, the most accurate measure for identifying poor effort was the Omission and Commissions T score. When selected measures were combined, sensitivity again increased (from .24 to .45). Overall, these results suggest that individual CPT-II measures can be useful for identifying people who are suspected of providing poor effort from those who have provided adequate effort. However, due to low sensitivity and modest negative predictive power values, this measure cannot be used in isolation to detect poor effort, and is largely useful as a test to "rule in," not "rule out" poor effort.
本研究旨在探讨康纳斯连续性能测试(CPT-II)作为一种嵌入式标记,在经历创伤性脑损伤后的神经心理评估中,对军事人员努力程度不佳的临床应用。参与者为 158 名美国军人,根据脑损伤严重程度和 2 项症状有效性测试(通过/失败)分为 3 组:轻度创伤性脑损伤(MTBI)-通过(n = 87),MTBI-失败(n = 42)和严重创伤性脑损伤(STBI)-通过(n = 29)。MTBI-失败组在大多数 CPT-II 指标上的表现均明显差于 MTBI-通过和 STBI-通过组。当比较 MTBI-失败组和 MTBI-通过组时,最准确的识别努力不佳的指标是委员会 T 分数。当选择的指标相结合时(即,遗漏、错误和坚持),敏感性略有增加(从.26 增加到.29)。当比较 MTBI-失败组和 STBI-通过组时,最准确的识别努力不佳的指标是遗漏和错误 T 分数。当选择的指标相结合时,敏感性再次增加(从.24 增加到.45)。总体而言,这些结果表明,单个 CPT-II 指标可用于识别那些被怀疑努力不佳的人,而那些努力充分的人。但是,由于敏感性和负预测值较低,因此不能单独使用该指标来检测努力不佳,而主要用作“确认”而不是“排除”努力不佳的测试。