1,100
Views
71
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests

, , , &
Pages 909-916 | Received 09 Oct 2012, Accepted 03 Apr 2013, Published online: 19 Jun 2013
 

Abstract

Objective: Effort indicators are used to determine if neuropsychological test results are valid measures of a patient’s cognitive abilities. The use of multiple effort measures is often advocated, but the false positive rate for multiple indicators depends on the number of measures used and the correlation among indicators. This study presents a meta-analysis of correlations among effort measures. False positive rates for multiple correlated indicators are then estimated using Monte Carlo simulations.

Methods: a literature search of published studies identified 22 independent samples in which 407 correlations among 31 effort measures were available in 3564 participants with normal effort. Participants were patients with neurological or psychiatric disorders and healthy volunteers.

Results: Meta-analysis showed a mean correlation among effort indicators of 0.31. Monte Carlo simulation based on a 15% false positive rate for individual indicators showed that, when 10 effort indicators are used together, 38% of patients with valid performance will be incorrectly identified as malingering if two failures is the diagnostic standard. Failure on five of 10 measures is required for a false positive rate of 10% or less. If five effort indicators are interpreted, a false positive rate of 19% results when two test failures are assumed to characterize poor effort and failure on three measures is required to maintain 90% specificity.

Conclusions: False positive rates for effort tests increase significantly as the number of indicators that are administered is increased.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thank Drs Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Nina Blaskweitz, Wm. Drew Gouvier, James Holdnack, Ashlee Loughan, William MacAllister, Regina McGlinchey, Thomas Merten, William Milberg, Justin Miller, Scott Millis, Nathaniel Nelson, NCS Pearson Inc., Russell Pella, Robert Perna, Barry Rosenfeld, Adriana Strutt and Antoinette Welsh for providing the correlational data presented in this paper and Dr John Crawford for providing the Monte Carlo simulation program and his assistance in the interpretation of the simulation results.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 727.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.