Smith Klayton, Boone Kyle, Victor Tara, Miora Deborah, Cottingham Maria, Ziegler Elizabeth, Zeller Michelle, Wright Matthew
a California School of Forensic Studies , Alliant International University , Alhambra , CA 91803 , USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28(6):1048-70. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2014.931465. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
The purpose of this archival study was to identify performance validity tests (PVTs) and standard IQ and neurocognitive test scores, which singly or in combination, differentiate credible patients of low IQ (FSIQ ≤ 75; n = 55) from non-credible patients. We compared the credible participants against a sample of 74 non-credible patients who appeared to have been attempting to feign low intelligence specifically (FSIQ ≤ 75), as well as a larger non-credible sample (n = 383) unselected for IQ. The entire non-credible group scored significantly higher than the credible participants on measures of verbal crystallized intelligence/semantic memory and manipulation of overlearned information, while the credible group performed significantly better on many processing speed and memory tests. Additionally, credible women showed faster finger-tapping speeds than non-credible women. The credible group also scored significantly higher than the non-credible subgroup with low IQ scores on measures of attention, visual perceptual/spatial tasks, processing speed, verbal learning/list learning, and visual memory, and credible women continued to outperform non-credible women on finger tapping. When cut-offs were selected to maintain approximately 90% specificity in the credible group, sensitivity rates were highest for verbal and visual memory measures (i.e., TOMM trials 1 and 2; Warrington Words correct and time; Rey Word Recognition Test total; RAVLT Effort Equation, Trial 5, total across learning trials, short delay, recognition, and RAVLT/RO discriminant function; and Digit Symbol recognition), followed by select attentional PVT scores (i.e., b Test omissions and time to recite four digits forward). When failure rates were tabulated across seven most sensitive scores, a cut-off of ≥ 2 failures was associated with 85.4% specificity and 85.7% sensitivity, while a cut-off of ≥ 3 failures resulted in 95.1% specificity and 66.0% sensitivity. Results are discussed in light of extant literature and directions for future research.
这项档案研究的目的是确定表现效度测试（PVT）以及标准智商和神经认知测试分数，这些测试单独或联合使用时，能够区分低智商（FSIQ≤75；n = 55）的可信患者与不可信患者。我们将可信参与者与74名似乎专门试图伪装低智商（FSIQ≤75）的不可信患者样本，以及一个未按智商选择的更大的不可信样本（n = 383）进行了比较。在言语晶体智力/语义记忆和过度学习信息的操作测量方面，整个不可信组的得分显著高于可信参与者，而可信组在许多处理速度和记忆测试中表现得更好。此外，可信女性的手指敲击速度比不可信女性更快。在注意力、视觉感知/空间任务、处理速度、言语学习/列表学习和视觉记忆测量方面，可信组的得分也显著高于低智商的不可信亚组，并且可信女性在手指敲击方面继续优于不可信女性。当选择截止分数以在可信组中保持约90%的特异性时，言语和视觉记忆测量（即，TOMM试验1和2；Warrington单词正确数和时间；Rey单词识别测试总分；RAVLT努力方程，试验5，整个学习试验、短延迟、识别的总分，以及RAVLT/RO判别函数；以及数字符号识别）的敏感性率最高，其次是选定的注意力PVT分数（即，b测试遗漏和向前背诵四位数字的时间）。当列出七个最敏感分数的失败率时，≥2次失败的截止分数与85.4%的特异性和85.7%的敏感性相关，而≥3次失败的截止分数导致95.1%的特异性和66.0%的敏感性。根据现有文献和未来研究方向对结果进行了讨论。
