Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:56:45.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: Exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2007

NATHANIEL W. NELSON ,
JERRY J. SWEET ,
DAVID T.R. BERRY ,
FRED B. BRYANT  and
ROBERT P. GRANACHER
NATHANIEL W. NELSON
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
JERRY J. SWEET
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston, and Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
DAVID T.R. BERRY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
FRED B. BRYANT
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
ROBERT P. GRANACHER
Affiliation:
Lexington Forensic Institute, Lexington, Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forensic neuropsychology studies usually address either cognitive effort or psychological response validity. Whether these are distinct constructs is unclear. In 122 participants evaluated in a compensation-seeking context, the present Exploratory Factor Analysis examined whether forced-choice cognitive effort measures (Victoria Symptom Validity Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Letter Memory Test) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition (MMPI-2) validity scales (L, F, K, FBS, Fp, RBS, Md, Dsr2, S) load on independent factors. Regardless of factor rotation strategy (orthogonal or oblique), four response validity factors emerged by means of both Principal Components Analysis (82.7% total variance) and Principal-Axis Factor Analysis (74.1% total variance). The four factors were designated as follows: Factor I, with large loadings from L, K, and S—underreporting of psychological symptoms; Factor II, with large loadings from FBS, RBS, and Md—overreporting of neurotic symptoms; Factor III, with large loadings from VSVT, TOMM, and LMT—insufficient cognitive effort; and Factor IV, with the largest loadings from F, Fp, and Dsr2—overreporting of psychotic/rarely endorsed symptoms. Results reflect the heterogeneity of response validity in forensic samples referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Administration of both cognitive effort measures and psychological validity scales is imperative to accurate forensic neuropsychological assessment. (JINS, 2007, 13, 440–449.)

Keywords

Minnesota multiphasic personality inventoryMalingeringForensic sciencesFactor analysisPsychometricsPersonality assessment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , May 2007 , pp. 440 - 449
Copyright
© 2007 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arbisi, P.A. & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). An MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The infrequency-psychopathology scale, F(p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424–431.Google Scholar
Bianchini, K.J., Mathias, C.W., & Greve, K.W. (2001). Symptom validity testing: A critical review. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 19–45.Google Scholar
Binder, L.M. & Kelly, M.P. (1996). Portland Digit Recognition Test performance by brain dysfunction patients without financial incentives. Assessment, 3, 403–409.Google Scholar
Bryant, F.B. (2000). Assessing the validity of measurement. In L.G. Grimm & P.R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 99–146). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Bryant, F.B. & Yarnold, P.R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L.G. Grimm & P.R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the administration and scoring of the MMPI-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J.N. & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2 scale to assess the presentation of self in a superlative manner: The S scale. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 25–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The Scree Test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.Google Scholar
Dearth, C.S., Berry, D.T.R., Vickery, C.D., Vagnini, V.L., Baser, R.E., Orey, S.A., & Cragar, D.E. (2005). Detection of feigned head injury symptoms on the MMPI-2 in head injured patients and community controls. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 95–110.Google Scholar
Gervais, R. (2005, April). Development of an empirically derived response bias scale for the MMPI-2. Paper presented at the Annual MMPI-2 Symposium and Workshops, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grace, J. & Malloy, P.F. (2001). Frontal Systems Behavior Scale: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Graham, J.R. (2000). MMPI-2, Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Greiffenstein, M.F., Baker, W.J., Gola, T., Donders, J., & Miller, L. (2002). The fake bad scale in atypical and severe closed head injury litigants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1591–1600.Google Scholar
Greiffenstein, M.F., Gola, T., & Baker, W.J. (1995). MMPI-2 validity scales versus domain specific measures in detection of factitious traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 230–240.Google Scholar
Greve, K.W., Bianchini, K.J., Love, J.M., Brennan, A., & Heinly, M.T. (2006). Sensitivity and specificity of MMPI-2 validity scales and indicators to malingered neurocognitive dysfunction in traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 491–512.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, A.E. & White, P.O. (1964). Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17, 65–70.Google Scholar
Hiscock, M. & Hiscock, C.K. (1989). Refining the forced-choice method for the detection of malingering. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 967–974.Google Scholar
Inman, T.H., Vickery, C.D., Berry, D.T.R., Lamb, D.G., Edwards, C.L., & Smith, G.T. (1998). Development and initial validation of a new procedure for evaluating adequacy of effort given during neuropsychological testing: The Letter Memory Test. Psychological Assessment, 10, 128–139.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 187–200.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (1998). Somatic malingering on the MMPI and MMPI-2 in personal injury litigants. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 179–188.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2003a). Detection of symptom exaggeration with the MMPI-2 in litigants with malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 54–68.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2003b). Exaggerated MMPI-2 symptom report in personal injury litigants with malingered neurocognitive deficit. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 673–686.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2003c). Exaggerated pain report in litigants with malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 395–401.Google Scholar
Lees-Haley, P.R., English, L.T., & Glenn, W.J. (1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.Google Scholar
Lees-Haley, P.R., Iverson, G.L., Lange, R.T., Fox, D.D., & Allen, L.M. (2002). Malingering in forensic neuropsychology: Daubert and the MMPI-2. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 3, 167–203.Google Scholar
Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lynch, W.J. (2004). Determination of effort level, exaggeration, and malingering in neurocognitive assessment. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 19, 277–283.Google Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.Google Scholar
Nelson, N.W. & Sweet, J.J., (in press). Malingering of psychiatric presentation: Divergence of cognitive effort measures and psychological test validity indicators. In J. Morgan & J. Sweet (Eds.), Neuropsychology of malingering casebook. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Nelson, N.W., Sweet, J.J., & Demakis, G. (2006). Meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale: Utility in forensic practice. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 39–58.Google Scholar
Nies, K. & Sweet, J. (1994). Neuropsychological assessment and malingering: A critical review of past and present strategies. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 501–552.Google Scholar
Pankratz, L. (1979). Symptom validity testing and symptom retraining: Procedures for the assessment and treatment of functional sensory deficits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 409–410.Google Scholar
Pankratz, L. (1983). A new technique for the assessment of modification of feigned memory deficit. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 367–372.Google Scholar
Ross, S.R., Millis, S.R., Krukowski, R.A., Putnam, S.H., and Adams, K.M. (2004). Detecting incomplete effort on the MMPI-2: An examination of the Fake Bad Scale in mild head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 115–124.Google Scholar
Slick, D.J., Hopp, G.A., & Strauss, E.H. (1995). The Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Slick, D.J., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., & Spellacy, F.J. (1996). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Efficiency for detecting feigned memory impairment and relationship to neuropsychological tests and MMPI-2 validity scales. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18, 911–922.Google Scholar
Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M.S., & Iverson, G.L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545–561.Google Scholar
Steffan, J.S., Clopton, J.R., & Morgan, R.D. (2003). An MMPI-2 scale to detect malingered depression (Md scale). Assessment, 10, 382–392.Google Scholar
Sweet, J. (1999). Malingering: Differential diagnosis. In J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Sweet, J.J., King, J.H., Malina, A.C., Bergman, M.A., & Simmons, A. (2002). Documenting the prominence of forensic neuropsychology at national meetings and in relevant professional journals from 1990 to 2000. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 481–494.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Tombaugh, T.N. (1996). Test of memory malingering. Toronto, Ontario: MultiHealth Systems.
Vickery, C.D., Berry, D.T.R., Inman, T.H., Harris, M.J., & Orey, S.A. (2001). Detection of inadequate effort on neuropsychological testing: A meta-analytic review of selected procedures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 45–73.Google Scholar