Functional Equivalence of WAIS-III/WMS-III Digit and Spatial Span under Forward and Backward Recall Conditions

The purpose of the current study was to examine the performance characteristics of the Wechsler Spatial Span subtest in a mixed clinical sample. Contrary to expectation, differential patterns of performance were obtained on the Digit and Spatial Span tasks. Forward Digit Span scores were significantly higher than backward recall scores, but this was not the case for Spatial Span. There were no differences between forward and backward raw Spatial Span scores at the mean level. Further, about one third of the sample showed better performance on backward compared to forward Spatial Span. In addition, performance on the Spatial Span backward task correlated unexpectedly with that of the WMS-III Immediate and Delayed Auditory Index scores. Overall, the findings suggest that clinicians should be hesitant when interpreting the Spatial Span task, and the backward condition in particular, as a measure of working memory. Finally, methodological concerns with the Spatial Span task are noted, raising additional concerns regarding the meaning of this task.     

Using Intraindividual Variability to Detect Malingering in Cognitive Performance

The utility of measures for detecting malingering was evaluated using a simulation design in which half the participants were encouraged to do their best and half were asked to feign head injury. Particular attention was focused on the utility of repeated assessment (intraindividual variability) in discriminating the groups. Participants were tested on three occasions on measures commonly used to detect malingering including a specific symptom validity test (SVT). The results indicated that multiple measures of malingering obtained in single assessment (occasion one) discriminated the groups effectively. In addition, however, intraindividual variability in performance, particularly of indicators from the SVT, provided unique information beyond level of performance. The results suggest that response inconsistency across testing sessions may be a clinically useful measure for the detection of malingering.