Establishing the base rate of performance invalidity in a clinical electrical injury sample: Implications for neuropsychological test performance

ABSTRACT

Objective: The base rate of neuropsychological performance invalidity in electrical injury, a clinically-distinct and frequently compensation-seeking population, is not well established. This study determined the base rate of performance invalidity in a large electrical injury sample, and examined patient characteristics, injury parameters, and neuropsychological test performance based on validity status.

Method: This cross-sectional study included data from 101 patients with electrical injury consecutively referred for post-acute neuropsychological evaluation. Eighty-five percent of the sample was compensation-seeking. Multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) were administered as part of standard clinical evaluation. For patients with four or more PVTs, valid performance was operationalized as less than or equal to one PVT failure and invalid performance as two or more failures.

Results: Frequency analysis revealed 66% (n = 67) had valid performance while 29% (n = 29) demonstrated probable invalid performance; the remaining 5% (n = 5) had indeterminate validity. No significant differences in demographics or injury parameters emerged between validity groups (0 vs. 1 vs. ≥2 PVT failures). In contrast, the electrical injury group with invalid performance performed significantly worse across tests of processing speed and executive abilities than those with valid performance (ps< .05, η_p² = .19-.25).

Conclusions: The current study is the first to establish the base rate of neuropsychological performance invalidity in electrical injury survivors using empirical methods and current practice standards. Patient and clinical variables, including compensation-seeking status, did not differ between validity groups; however, neuropsychological test performance did, supporting the need for multi-method, objective performance validity assessment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

There are no sources of financial support to report.