• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

三种高级临床解决方案性能有效性测试的交叉验证:研究测量方法的组合以最大化无效性能的分类。

Cross-validation of three Advanced Clinical Solutions performance validity tests: Examining combinations of measures to maximize classification of invalid performance.

作者信息

Bain Kathleen M, Soble Jason R, Webber Troy A, Messerly Johanna M, Bailey K Chase, Kirton Joshua W, McCoy Karin J M

机构信息

South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

出版信息

Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2021 Jan-Feb;28(1):24-34. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1585352. Epub 2019 Apr 15.

DOI:10.1080/23279095.2019.1585352
PMID:30987451
Abstract

Use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) may best identify invalid performance, though few studies have examined the utility and accuracy of combining PVTs. This study examined the following PVTs in the Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) package to determine their utility alone and in concert: Word Choice Test (WCT), Reliable Digit Span (RDS), and Logical Memory Recognition (LMR). Ninety-three veterans participated in clinical neuropsychological evaluations to determine presence of cognitive impairment; 25% of the performances were deemed invalid via criterion PVTs. Classification accuracy of the ACS measures was assessed via receiver operating characteristic curves, while logistic regressions determined utility of combining these PVTs. The WCT demonstrated superior classification accuracy compared to the two embedded measures of the ACS, even in veterans with cognitive impairment. The two embedded measures (even when used in concert) exhibited inadequate classification accuracy. A combined model with all three ACS PVTs similarly demonstrated little benefit of the embedded indicators over the WCT alone. Results suggest the ACS WCT has utility for detecting invalid performance in a clinical sample with likely cognitive impairment, though the embedded ACS measures (RDS and LMR) may have limited incremental utility, particularly in individuals with cognitive impairment.

摘要

使用多种效标效度测试(PVT)可能最有助于识别无效表现,不过很少有研究考察过组合使用PVT的效用和准确性。本研究在高级临床解决方案(ACS)软件包中对以下PVT进行了考察,以确定它们单独使用及联合使用时的效用:词汇选择测试(WCT)、可靠数字广度(RDS)和逻辑记忆识别(LMR)。93名退伍军人参与了临床神经心理学评估,以确定是否存在认知障碍;通过标准PVT判定,25%的表现为无效。通过接受者操作特征曲线评估ACS各项测试的分类准确性,同时通过逻辑回归确定组合使用这些PVT的效用。与ACS的另外两项内置测试相比,WCT显示出更高的分类准确性,即便在存在认知障碍的退伍军人中也是如此。另外两项内置测试(即使联合使用)的分类准确性也不足。包含所有三项ACS PVT的组合模型同样显示,内置指标单独使用时并不比WCT更具优势。结果表明,ACS的WCT对于检测可能存在认知障碍的临床样本中的无效表现有用,不过ACS的内置测试(RDS和LMR)的增效作用可能有限,尤其是在认知障碍患者中。

相似文献

1
Cross-validation of three Advanced Clinical Solutions performance validity tests: Examining combinations of measures to maximize classification of invalid performance.三种高级临床解决方案性能有效性测试的交叉验证:研究测量方法的组合以最大化无效性能的分类。
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2021 Jan-Feb;28(1):24-34. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1585352. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
2
Cross-validation of the Trail Making Test as a non-memory-based embedded performance validity test among veterans with and without cognitive impairment.简易精神状态检查作为一种基于非记忆的嵌入式认知效能测验在认知障碍和非认知障碍退伍军人中的交叉验证。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024 Feb;46(1):16-24. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2023.2287784. Epub 2023 Nov 25.
3
Not so fast! Limitations of processing speed and working memory indices as embedded performance validity tests in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample.别急!在混合神经精神样本中,作为嵌入式绩效效度测试的加工速度和工作记忆指标的局限性。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2020 Jul;42(5):473-484. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2020.1758635. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
4
Cross-validation of non-memory-based embedded performance validity tests for detecting invalid performance among patients with and without neurocognitive impairment.基于非记忆的嵌入式绩效效验测试在认知障碍患者和非认知障碍患者中的效验比较。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2020 Jul;42(5):459-472. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2020.1758634. Epub 2020 May 13.
5
Minimizing evaluation time while maintaining accuracy: Cross-validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 and first 10-item errors as briefer performance validity tests.在保持准确性的同时尽量减少评估时间:作为更简短的表现有效性测试,对记忆测验(TOMM)试验 1 和前 10 项错误进行交叉验证。
Psychol Assess. 2020 May;32(5):442-450. doi: 10.1037/pas0000802. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
6
Utility of various WAIS-IV Digit Span indices for identifying noncredible performance validity among cognitively impaired and unimpaired examinees.各种韦氏智力测验第四版数字广度指标在识别认知受损和未受损被试者非真实表现能力方面的效用。
Clin Neuropsychol. 2018 May;32(4):657-670. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2017.1415374. Epub 2017 Dec 19.
7
When 10 is enough: Errors on the first 10 items of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMMe10) and administration time predict freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs) and underperformance on memory measures.当10项足够时:记忆伪装测验(TOMM前10项)中的错误及施测时间可预测独立的效标效度测验(PVT)及记忆测量中的表现不佳。
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2021 Jan-Feb;28(1):35-47. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1588122. Epub 2019 Apr 5.
8
Validation of the Advanced Clinical Solutions Word Choice Test (WCT) in a Mixed Clinical Sample: Establishing Classification Accuracy, Sensitivity/Specificity, and Cutoff Scores.高级临床解决方案词汇选择测试(WCT)在混合临床样本中的验证:确定分类准确性、灵敏度/特异性和截断分数。
Assessment. 2019 Oct;26(7):1320-1328. doi: 10.1177/1073191117725172. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
9
Evaluation of the classification accuracy of multiple performance validity tests in a mixed clinical sample.评估多种性能有效性测试在混合临床样本中的分类准确性。
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2021 Nov-Dec;28(6):727-736. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1698581. Epub 2019 Dec 13.
10
CVLT-II Forced Choice Recognition Trial as an Embedded Validity Indicator: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.作为嵌入式效度指标的加利福尼亚词语学习测验第二版强制选择识别试验:证据的系统评价
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016 Sep;22(8):851-8. doi: 10.1017/S1355617716000746.

引用本文的文献

1
Repeated time-series cross-validation: A new method to improved COVID-19 forecast accuracy in Malaysia.重复时间序列交叉验证:一种提高马来西亚新冠疫情预测准确性的新方法。
MethodsX. 2024 Oct 30;13:103013. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.103013. eCollection 2024 Dec.