Citation

Bigler ED. Brain Inj. 2014; 28(13-14): 1623-1638.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.3109/02699052.2014.947627

PMID

25215453

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount. Review: This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a 'passing' SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS: Advances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed.

Language: en