Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.     

基于雨课堂的临床流行病学教学改革与实践

目的探讨雨课堂在临床流行病学教学中的作用和效果。方法采用随机对照法在本科阶段无流行病学学习经历的临床专业硕士研究生中,使用雨课堂线上课前预习及课后随堂练习的功能,用于评价雨课堂线上功能的辅助教学效果。结果应用雨课堂线上功能干预组与对照组在基线、阶段小测和末考卷面成绩均无统计学差异;但对于主动学习,雨课堂参与度较高的学生成绩提高明显。结论雨课堂有利于理论性较强课程的学习,但是仍不能忽略课堂教学师生互动过程。