Gaudet, C E; Weyandt, L L
Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance Journal Article
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 43–58, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Concussion assessment, ImPACT, invalid performance, malingering
@article{Gaudet2017,
title = {Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance},
author = {Gaudet, C E and Weyandt, L L},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2016.1220622},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {31},
number = {1},
pages = {43--58},
abstract = {Objective: Computerized neuropsychological assessment of concussion has rapidly expanded and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is among the most commonly used measures in this domain. ImPACT was primarily developed for use with athletic populations but continues to expand beyond athletics to settings such as the workplace and schools where motivational dispositions may vary. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of existing research investigating the prevalence of invalid baseline results and the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators in detecting suspect effort. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in order to systematically structure a search across four databases and analysis of studies that presented data related to the prevalence of invalid performance and/or the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. Results: A total of 17 studies included prevalence rates of invalid performances or examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s invalidity indicators. Of the 17 studies, 12 included prevalence rates of invalid baseline results; and across this group of studies (after removing an outlier), the weighted prevalence rate of invalid baseline results was 6%. Four of the 17 studies examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators correctly identified suboptimal effort in approximately 80% of individuals instructed to perform poorly and avoid detection (‘coached’) or instructed to perform poorly (‘na\"{i}ve’). Conclusions: These findings raise a number of issues pertaining to the use of ImPACT. Invalid performance incidence may increase with large group versus individual administration, use in nonclinical settings, and among those with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder or learning disability. Additionally, the older desktop version of ImPACT appears to be associated with a higher rate of invalid performances than the online version. Although ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators detect invalid performance at a rate of 6% on average, known group validity studies suggest that these measures miss invalid performance approximately 20% of the time when individuals purposefully underperform. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.},
keywords = {Concussion assessment, ImPACT, invalid performance, malingering},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Zottoli, T M; Hoover, S; Barr, W B
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 678–688, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: brain concussion, Civil Litigation, Female, human, Humans, IME, Insufficient effort, legislation and jurisprudence, Male, malingering, Malpractice, middle aged, neuropsychological test, Neuropsychological Tests, neuropsychology, Physical Examination, questionnaire, Standardized assessment of concussion (SAC), statistics and numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires
@article{Zottoli2015,
title = {Utility of the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) to Detect Insufficient Effort in Independent Medical Examinations and Civil Litigation Cases},
author = {Zottoli, T M and Hoover, S and Barr, W B},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2015.1062562},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {29},
number = {5},
pages = {678--688},
abstract = {Objective: The Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) is a standardized mental status screening instrument initially developed for assessment and tracking of concussion symptoms in athletes. The purpose of the current study was to validate the utility of the SAC as an embedded screening measure for insufficient effort in independent medical examinations (IME) and personal injury cases. Method: A known-groups design was used to examine the SACs utility for the detection of insufficient effort in 75 de-identified private IME and civil litigation evaluations. Initial classifications of insufficient effort were made independently of SAC scores, on the basis of having two or more scores falling below established cut-offs on previously validated neuropsychological measures. Results: Results suggest that the total score on the SAC significantly distinguishes effortful respondents from those exhibiting insufficient effort. Empirically derived cut-off scores yielded adequate sensitivity (.62-.95) and negative predictive power (.93-.97). Conclusions: While optimal cut-off scores depend upon intended use, our data suggest that the SAC is useful as a potential screener for insufficient effort, after which one can employ additional measures to rule out false-positives. Further research is required before cut-off scores can be recommended for clinical use. © 2015 Taylor and Francis.},
keywords = {brain concussion, Civil Litigation, Female, human, Humans, IME, Insufficient effort, legislation and jurisprudence, Male, malingering, Malpractice, middle aged, neuropsychological test, Neuropsychological Tests, neuropsychology, Physical Examination, questionnaire, Standardized assessment of concussion (SAC), statistics and numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Gaudet, C E; Weyandt, L L
Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance Journal Article
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 43–58, 2017.
@article{Gaudet2017,
title = {Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance},
author = {Gaudet, C E and Weyandt, L L},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2016.1220622},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {31},
number = {1},
pages = {43--58},
abstract = {Objective: Computerized neuropsychological assessment of concussion has rapidly expanded and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is among the most commonly used measures in this domain. ImPACT was primarily developed for use with athletic populations but continues to expand beyond athletics to settings such as the workplace and schools where motivational dispositions may vary. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of existing research investigating the prevalence of invalid baseline results and the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators in detecting suspect effort. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in order to systematically structure a search across four databases and analysis of studies that presented data related to the prevalence of invalid performance and/or the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. Results: A total of 17 studies included prevalence rates of invalid performances or examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s invalidity indicators. Of the 17 studies, 12 included prevalence rates of invalid baseline results; and across this group of studies (after removing an outlier), the weighted prevalence rate of invalid baseline results was 6%. Four of the 17 studies examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators correctly identified suboptimal effort in approximately 80% of individuals instructed to perform poorly and avoid detection (‘coached’) or instructed to perform poorly (‘na\"{i}ve’). Conclusions: These findings raise a number of issues pertaining to the use of ImPACT. Invalid performance incidence may increase with large group versus individual administration, use in nonclinical settings, and among those with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder or learning disability. Additionally, the older desktop version of ImPACT appears to be associated with a higher rate of invalid performances than the online version. Although ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators detect invalid performance at a rate of 6% on average, known group validity studies suggest that these measures miss invalid performance approximately 20% of the time when individuals purposefully underperform. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Zottoli, T M; Hoover, S; Barr, W B
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 678–688, 2015.
@article{Zottoli2015,
title = {Utility of the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) to Detect Insufficient Effort in Independent Medical Examinations and Civil Litigation Cases},
author = {Zottoli, T M and Hoover, S and Barr, W B},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2015.1062562},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {29},
number = {5},
pages = {678--688},
abstract = {Objective: The Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) is a standardized mental status screening instrument initially developed for assessment and tracking of concussion symptoms in athletes. The purpose of the current study was to validate the utility of the SAC as an embedded screening measure for insufficient effort in independent medical examinations (IME) and personal injury cases. Method: A known-groups design was used to examine the SACs utility for the detection of insufficient effort in 75 de-identified private IME and civil litigation evaluations. Initial classifications of insufficient effort were made independently of SAC scores, on the basis of having two or more scores falling below established cut-offs on previously validated neuropsychological measures. Results: Results suggest that the total score on the SAC significantly distinguishes effortful respondents from those exhibiting insufficient effort. Empirically derived cut-off scores yielded adequate sensitivity (.62-.95) and negative predictive power (.93-.97). Conclusions: While optimal cut-off scores depend upon intended use, our data suggest that the SAC is useful as a potential screener for insufficient effort, after which one can employ additional measures to rule out false-positives. Further research is required before cut-off scores can be recommended for clinical use. © 2015 Taylor and Francis.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Gaudet, C E; Weyandt, L L
Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance Journal Article
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 43–58, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Concussion assessment, ImPACT, invalid performance, malingering
@article{Gaudet2017,
title = {Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT): a systematic review of the prevalence and assessment of invalid performance},
author = {Gaudet, C E and Weyandt, L L},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2016.1220622},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {31},
number = {1},
pages = {43--58},
abstract = {Objective: Computerized neuropsychological assessment of concussion has rapidly expanded and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is among the most commonly used measures in this domain. ImPACT was primarily developed for use with athletic populations but continues to expand beyond athletics to settings such as the workplace and schools where motivational dispositions may vary. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of existing research investigating the prevalence of invalid baseline results and the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators in detecting suspect effort. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in order to systematically structure a search across four databases and analysis of studies that presented data related to the prevalence of invalid performance and/or the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. Results: A total of 17 studies included prevalence rates of invalid performances or examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s invalidity indicators. Of the 17 studies, 12 included prevalence rates of invalid baseline results; and across this group of studies (after removing an outlier), the weighted prevalence rate of invalid baseline results was 6%. Four of the 17 studies examined the effectiveness of ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators. ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators correctly identified suboptimal effort in approximately 80% of individuals instructed to perform poorly and avoid detection (‘coached’) or instructed to perform poorly (‘na\"{i}ve’). Conclusions: These findings raise a number of issues pertaining to the use of ImPACT. Invalid performance incidence may increase with large group versus individual administration, use in nonclinical settings, and among those with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder or learning disability. Additionally, the older desktop version of ImPACT appears to be associated with a higher rate of invalid performances than the online version. Although ImPACT’s embedded invalidity indicators detect invalid performance at a rate of 6% on average, known group validity studies suggest that these measures miss invalid performance approximately 20% of the time when individuals purposefully underperform. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.},
keywords = {Concussion assessment, ImPACT, invalid performance, malingering},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Zottoli, T M; Hoover, S; Barr, W B
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 678–688, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: brain concussion, Civil Litigation, Female, human, Humans, IME, Insufficient effort, legislation and jurisprudence, Male, malingering, Malpractice, middle aged, neuropsychological test, Neuropsychological Tests, neuropsychology, Physical Examination, questionnaire, Standardized assessment of concussion (SAC), statistics and numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires
@article{Zottoli2015,
title = {Utility of the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) to Detect Insufficient Effort in Independent Medical Examinations and Civil Litigation Cases},
author = {Zottoli, T M and Hoover, S and Barr, W B},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2015.1062562},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Clinical Neuropsychologist},
volume = {29},
number = {5},
pages = {678--688},
abstract = {Objective: The Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) is a standardized mental status screening instrument initially developed for assessment and tracking of concussion symptoms in athletes. The purpose of the current study was to validate the utility of the SAC as an embedded screening measure for insufficient effort in independent medical examinations (IME) and personal injury cases. Method: A known-groups design was used to examine the SACs utility for the detection of insufficient effort in 75 de-identified private IME and civil litigation evaluations. Initial classifications of insufficient effort were made independently of SAC scores, on the basis of having two or more scores falling below established cut-offs on previously validated neuropsychological measures. Results: Results suggest that the total score on the SAC significantly distinguishes effortful respondents from those exhibiting insufficient effort. Empirically derived cut-off scores yielded adequate sensitivity (.62-.95) and negative predictive power (.93-.97). Conclusions: While optimal cut-off scores depend upon intended use, our data suggest that the SAC is useful as a potential screener for insufficient effort, after which one can employ additional measures to rule out false-positives. Further research is required before cut-off scores can be recommended for clinical use. © 2015 Taylor and Francis.},
keywords = {brain concussion, Civil Litigation, Female, human, Humans, IME, Insufficient effort, legislation and jurisprudence, Male, malingering, Malpractice, middle aged, neuropsychological test, Neuropsychological Tests, neuropsychology, Physical Examination, questionnaire, Standardized assessment of concussion (SAC), statistics and numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}