False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests

Abstract Objective: Effort indicators are used to determine if neuropsychological test results are valid measures of a patient's cognitive abilities. The use of multiple effort measures is often advocated, but the false positive rate for multiple indicators depends on the number of measures use...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Brain injury Vol. 27; no. 7-8; pp. 909 - 916
Main Authors:	Berthelson, Lena, Mulchan, Siddika S., Odland, Anthony P., Miller, Lori J., Mittenberg, Wiley
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England Informa UK Ltd 01-07-2013 Taylor & Francis
Subjects:	Base rate Data Interpretation, Statistical Disability Evaluation effort tests False Positive Reactions Female Humans Male malingering Malingering - diagnosis Malingering - psychology medicolegal Monte Carlo Method Neuropsychological Tests Reproducibility of Results symptom exaggeration symptom validity
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Abstract Objective: Effort indicators are used to determine if neuropsychological test results are valid measures of a patient's cognitive abilities. The use of multiple effort measures is often advocated, but the false positive rate for multiple indicators depends on the number of measures used and the correlation among indicators. This study presents a meta-analysis of correlations among effort measures. False positive rates for multiple correlated indicators are then estimated using Monte Carlo simulations. Methods: a literature search of published studies identified 22 independent samples in which 407 correlations among 31 effort measures were available in 3564 participants with normal effort. Participants were patients with neurological or psychiatric disorders and healthy volunteers. Results: Meta-analysis showed a mean correlation among effort indicators of 0.31. Monte Carlo simulation based on a 15% false positive rate for individual indicators showed that, when 10 effort indicators are used together, 38% of patients with valid performance will be incorrectly identified as malingering if two failures is the diagnostic standard. Failure on five of 10 measures is required for a false positive rate of 10% or less. If five effort indicators are interpreted, a false positive rate of 19% results when two test failures are assumed to characterize poor effort and failure on three measures is required to maintain 90% specificity. Conclusions: False positive rates for effort tests increase significantly as the number of indicators that are administered is increased.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23
ISSN:	0269-9052 1362-301X
DOI:	10.3109/02699052.2013.793400