Search

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) was developed to predict non-credible cognitive presentations among disability claimants without head injury. Developers used empirical keying, which is independent of apparent content, to select items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) item pool that distinguished between individuals passing or failing performance validity tests (PVTs). No study has examined which of these items would have psychometric value when used in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. This study reexamined items comprising RBS with reference to manifest item content, internal consistency, PVTs, and a symptom validity test (SVT) in a sample of 173 predominately White male veterans ( M AGE = 50.70, M EDU = 13.73) in a VA outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants completed the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), PVTs, and an SVT. The 28-item RBS appears to contain three types of items: those that manifestly address cognitive functioning, those that are supported but do not appear to address cognitive functioning, and nine items that were unrelated to cognition and not statistically supported. The 19 empirically supported items, or RBS-19, predicted PVT and SVT failures marginally better than the RBS. Both the RBS and RBS-19 had stronger relationships with SVTs relative to PVTs. Although the removal of the nine problematic items improved the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, it still did not reach the level that is generally considered to be clinically optimal. The RBS-19 offers a measure with improved internal consistency and predictive validity compared to the RBS and warrants additional research.

Initial learning and learning slope are often acknowledged as important qualitative aspects of learning, but the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) contains discrete indices for neither. The traditional method of calculating learning slope involves a difference score between the last trial and first trial, which is referred to as raw learning score (RLS). However, this method does not account for initial Trial One performance and produces a ceiling effect that penalizes efficient first learners. We propose an alternative method of calculating learning score that accounts for initial learning performance, called learning ratio (LR), and we compared the psychometric and predictive properties of these methods. Performances from the List Learning and Story Memory subtests were used to create the indices, and composite learning scores were calculated by combining List Learning and Story Memory. The sample included 289 military veterans (mean age = 65.9 [12.6], education = 13.3 [2.4]), most of whom were male, undergoing neuropsychological assessments that included the RBANS. Results indicated that LR demonstrated superior correlations with criterion measures of memory when compared with RLS, and the LR composite score better discriminated between those with and without a neurocognitive diagnosis, AUC = 0.81 (0.76-0.87), than the RLS composite, AUC = 0.70 (0.64-0.76). We concluded that scores from the RBANS can be computed for initial learning and learning slope and that the LR method of calculating learning is superior to RLS in this older veteran sample.

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) permits quantifying diverse cognitive abilities, including executive function (EF). We evaluated the psychometric properties of a scoring procedure for the RCFT, the Savage Organizational Scoring System (SOSS), that awards points for drawing the largest structural elements of the figures as continuous wholes. This was a two-phase study: first, we conducted a systematic literature search for studies using the SOSS, and aggregated previously published data for healthy controls to create a normative database; second, we observed performances from veterans evaluated for traumatic brain injury (TBI), examining the reliability of their SOSS scores, the SOSS correlations with two EF measures and the participants' self-reported cognitive functioning, and then compared their mean scores to normative expectations. Across our literature-derived normative database, the aggregated mean SOSS score was 4.12 ( SD  = 1.72), which was marginally higher than that of our veteran participants evaluated for TBI, 3.72 ( SD  = 1.79). The SOSS had modest internal consistency (α = .59). Unlike the criterion EF measures, the SOSS was not significantly related to self-reported cognitive functioning. The SOSS shared a small, significant correlation with Trails B and Shipley Abstraction; but RCFT Copy scores were more strongly related to these tests, and the SOSS added no significant incremental predictive value beyond the RCFT Copy score. However, SOSS scores did predict RCFT Recall beyond RCFT Copy scores. We conclude that the SOSS has modest reliability and is predictive of RCFT Recall scores, but it is not strongly correlated with other EF measures, and it is only minimally affected by mild TBI.

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is frequently used as a cognitive screening measure or as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Augmenting the current memory subtests of the RBANS to reflect clinically meaningful distinctions in memory performance may improve its clinical utility, allowing users to generate additional hypotheses and refine clinical interpretations. We pilot four supplementary memory measures to use with the RBANS, adapted from paradigms commonly used by other neuropsychological tests. We also provide several new theoretically derived memory indices to supplement the standard Delayed Memory Index. The new subtests correlated significantly with the standard memory measures, and the new indices demonstrated good reliability and diagnostic accuracy. This study provides preliminary support for supplementing the RBANS to allow for more nuanced interpretations of memory performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) was developed to briefly measure a broad range of cognitive abilities, but it initially lacked a scale to evaluate executive functioning. Robert Spencer and colleagues recently created an Executive Errors scale (RBANS-EE) that quantified executive functioning (EF) errors committed during four RBANS subtests: List Learning, Semantic Fluency, Coding, and List Recall. In the present paper we cross-validated the RBANS-EE with a sample of 234 U.S. military veterans (M AGE = 67.2, SD = 11.5 years; M EDUCATION = 13.3, SD = 2.4 years) who completed the RBANS and various EF criterion measures as part of neuropsychological assessments they underwent during their clinical care. We found the RBANS-EE to be significantly correlated with most of the criterion EF measures. The RBANS-EE scale demonstrated modest ability to classify EF impairment at mild and severe levels; and, similarly, the RBANS-EE was modestly capable of accurately classifying those veteran respondents who were determined to have or to not have a neurocognitive disorder. Overall, the RBANS-EE can be quickly calculated, adds no administration time to an RBANS assessment, and yields useful scores to screen for EF dysfunction without replacing standalone EF tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose/Aim of the Study: The Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) is a 22-item self-report measure created to quantify the somatosensory, cognitive, and affective symptoms of Post-concussive Syndrome. Developers of the NSI used a subset of 10 items, the Validty-10, to measure symptom overreporting. We compared the Validity-10 versus the remaining NSI items (i.e., the Remaining-12) for how accurately they detect symptom exaggeration on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Second Edition - Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Materials and Methods: We used a sample of 45 veterans evaluated in a Polytrauma/TBI Clinic of a Midwest VA Healthcare System who completed the NSI and MMPI-2-RF. Results: The Vaidity-10, Remaining-12, and Total Score all strongly correlated with mean of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales (r =.65,.67, and.70, respectively), illustrating equivalency among the various NSI scores. Groups were created based on significant T score elevation on any MMPI-2-RF validity scale (i.e. F-r > 119, or Fp-r, F-s, FBS, or RBS > 99). ROC analyses demonstrated that areas under the curve were equivalent for NSI Total Score (.84), Validity-10 (.81), and Remaining-12 (.81) in detecting overreporting. Conclusions: These findings do not support the notion that the Validity-10 has unique utility as an embedded symptom validity scale and highlights the likelihood that NSI Total Score can also serve this function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]