Validation of grooved pegboard cutoffs as an additional embedded measure of performance validity

Abstract

Objective

Using embedded performance validity (PVT) comparisons, Erdodi et al. suggested that Grooved Pegboard (GPB) T-score cutoffs for either hand ($\le$ 29) or both hands ($\le$ 31) could be used as additional embedded PVTs. The current study evaluated the relationship between these proposed cutoff scores and established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT]; Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]).

Method

Participants (N = 178) were predominately Caucasian (84%) males (79%) with a mean age and education of 41 (SD = 11.7) and 15.8 years (SD = 2.3), respectively. Participants were stratified as “passing” or “failing” the GPBviaErdodi’s proposed criteria. “Failures” on the MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were based on conventional recommendations.

Results

Moderate correlations between GPB classification and a condition of interest (COI; i.e. at least two failures on reference PVTs) were observed for dominant (χ² (1, n = 178) = 34.72, ϕ = .44, p < .001), non-dominant (χ² (1, n = 178) = 16.46, ϕ = .30, p = .001), and both hand conditions (χ² (1, n = 178) = 32.48, ϕ = .43, p < .001). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power were generally higher than Erdodi et al.’s initial findings.

Conclusion

These findingsprovide supportfor the clinical utility of the GPB as an additional embedded PVT. More specifically, dominant and both hand cutoffs were found to be more robust measures ofnon-genuine performance in those without motor deficits. While promising, sensitivity continues to be low; therefore, it is ill-advised to use the GPB as a sole measure of ­performance validity.

Keywords:

• Grooved Pegboard
• performance validity
• military
• veterans

Disclosure statement

The authors have are no potential conflict of interest. The view(s) expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Brooke Army Medical Center, Madigan Army Medical Center, the U.S. Army Medical Department, the U.S. Army Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. This work was prepared under Contract HT0014-19-C-0004 with DHA Contracting Office (CO-NCR) HT0014 and, therefore, is defined as U.S. Government work under Title 17 U.S.C.§101. Per Title 17 U.S.C.§105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. For more information, please contact [email protected]: UNCLASSIFIED.

Funding

The current study was not supported by funding or grants.