Loading…

Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios

Recent literature shows that aggregating across multiple symptom validity test (SVT) failures increases the probability of malingering over use of one indicator alone, supporting the criteria proposed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) that require multiple sources of evidence for diagnosis of ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical neuropsychologist 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.666-679
Main Author: Larrabee, Glenn J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33
container_end_page 679
container_issue 4
container_start_page 666
container_title Clinical neuropsychologist
container_volume 22
creator Larrabee, Glenn J.
description Recent literature shows that aggregating across multiple symptom validity test (SVT) failures increases the probability of malingering over use of one indicator alone, supporting the criteria proposed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) that require multiple sources of evidence for diagnosis of malingering. The present study reanalyzes with likelihood ratios data previously published by Larrabee ( 2003a ) on litigants with definite malingering, contrasted with non-malingering patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Chaining of likelihood ratios demonstrated an increase in probability of malingering when multiple test scores were positive, with values ranging from. 713 to. 837 for one failed SVT,. 936 to. 973 for two failed SVTs, and. 989 to. 995 for three failed SVTs. Posterior probabilities of malingering derived from chaining of likelihood ratios closely approximated those obtained by direct computation of Positive Predictive Power, particularly when three SVTs were failed. Moreover, the five SVTs employed in these analyses did not intercorrelate significantly, satisfying the assumption that the tests be independent for chaining of likelihood ratios. Posterior probabilities derived from chaining of likelihood ratios, holding sensitivity and specificity constant at. 50 and. 90, respectively, and varying the malingering base rate from. 10 to. 90, showed a wide range of values,. 357 to. 978, for failure of one SVT. Failure of two SVTs yielded probabilities ranging from. 735 to. 996. Failure of three SVTs yielded values ranging from. 933 to. 999, demonstrating high probabilities of malingering irrespective of the base rate. These data support the Slick et al . recommendation that multiple positive findings are necessary for diagnosis of malingering. Suggestions are made for modification of the Slick et al . criteria based on the current results.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/13854040701494987
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69288044</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69288044</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1vEzEQhlcIRD_gB3BBvtDbUnvt9QfiErUFIqVCquC8cuxxYvCug-1A--9xk1AOleBiWzPP82o8TfOK4LcES3xOqOwZZlhgwhRTUjxpjolgrGWEsaf1XfttBfhRc5LzN4wJZ5143hwRISUnTBw3cbZaJVjp4uOEZibFnNH1NhS_CYDmk_VGl5gymo-bFH9CRmUN6BIKmJ0RHbrWwU8rSPV4h24g7KLy2m9QiWjhv0Pw6xgturlv5BfNM6dDhpeH-7T5-uHqy8WndvH54_xitmgNo7i0ztFeWEc7oBhj1XU9l2BVx1jPDV8uQYOSrAclFPSc9NISRZyxtc5tlelpc7bPrWP_2EIuw-izgRD0BHGbB646KTFjFSR7cPf3BG7YJD_qdDcQPNxveXi05eq8PoRvlyPYv8ZhrRV4cwB0Njq4pCfj8wPXEUKpVLxy7_ecn1xMo_4VU7BD0Xchpj8S_dcc4r_6I2sot4X-Bj_eq3Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69288044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis</source><creator>Larrabee, Glenn J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Larrabee, Glenn J.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent literature shows that aggregating across multiple symptom validity test (SVT) failures increases the probability of malingering over use of one indicator alone, supporting the criteria proposed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) that require multiple sources of evidence for diagnosis of malingering. The present study reanalyzes with likelihood ratios data previously published by Larrabee ( 2003a ) on litigants with definite malingering, contrasted with non-malingering patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Chaining of likelihood ratios demonstrated an increase in probability of malingering when multiple test scores were positive, with values ranging from. 713 to. 837 for one failed SVT,. 936 to. 973 for two failed SVTs, and. 989 to. 995 for three failed SVTs. Posterior probabilities of malingering derived from chaining of likelihood ratios closely approximated those obtained by direct computation of Positive Predictive Power, particularly when three SVTs were failed. Moreover, the five SVTs employed in these analyses did not intercorrelate significantly, satisfying the assumption that the tests be independent for chaining of likelihood ratios. Posterior probabilities derived from chaining of likelihood ratios, holding sensitivity and specificity constant at. 50 and. 90, respectively, and varying the malingering base rate from. 10 to. 90, showed a wide range of values,. 357 to. 978, for failure of one SVT. Failure of two SVTs yielded probabilities ranging from. 735 to. 996. Failure of three SVTs yielded values ranging from. 933 to. 999, demonstrating high probabilities of malingering irrespective of the base rate. These data support the Slick et al . recommendation that multiple positive findings are necessary for diagnosis of malingering. Suggestions are made for modification of the Slick et al . criteria based on the current results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1385-4046</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-4144</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/13854040701494987</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17886147</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hove: Psychology Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aggregation ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brain Injuries - diagnosis ; Brain Injuries - psychology ; Chaining ; False Negative Reactions ; Female ; Humans ; Likelihood Functions ; Likelihood ratios ; Male ; Malingering ; Malingering - diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Multiple indicators ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Techniques and methods</subject><ispartof>Clinical neuropsychologist, 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.666-679</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2008</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21133896$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886147$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Larrabee, Glenn J.</creatorcontrib><title>Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios</title><title>Clinical neuropsychologist</title><addtitle>Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><description>Recent literature shows that aggregating across multiple symptom validity test (SVT) failures increases the probability of malingering over use of one indicator alone, supporting the criteria proposed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) that require multiple sources of evidence for diagnosis of malingering. The present study reanalyzes with likelihood ratios data previously published by Larrabee ( 2003a ) on litigants with definite malingering, contrasted with non-malingering patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Chaining of likelihood ratios demonstrated an increase in probability of malingering when multiple test scores were positive, with values ranging from. 713 to. 837 for one failed SVT,. 936 to. 973 for two failed SVTs, and. 989 to. 995 for three failed SVTs. Posterior probabilities of malingering derived from chaining of likelihood ratios closely approximated those obtained by direct computation of Positive Predictive Power, particularly when three SVTs were failed. Moreover, the five SVTs employed in these analyses did not intercorrelate significantly, satisfying the assumption that the tests be independent for chaining of likelihood ratios. Posterior probabilities derived from chaining of likelihood ratios, holding sensitivity and specificity constant at. 50 and. 90, respectively, and varying the malingering base rate from. 10 to. 90, showed a wide range of values,. 357 to. 978, for failure of one SVT. Failure of two SVTs yielded probabilities ranging from. 735 to. 996. Failure of three SVTs yielded values ranging from. 933 to. 999, demonstrating high probabilities of malingering irrespective of the base rate. These data support the Slick et al . recommendation that multiple positive findings are necessary for diagnosis of malingering. Suggestions are made for modification of the Slick et al . criteria based on the current results.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aggregation</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brain Injuries - diagnosis</subject><subject>Brain Injuries - psychology</subject><subject>Chaining</subject><subject>False Negative Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Likelihood Functions</subject><subject>Likelihood ratios</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malingering</subject><subject>Malingering - diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multiple indicators</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><issn>1385-4046</issn><issn>1744-4144</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1vEzEQhlcIRD_gB3BBvtDbUnvt9QfiErUFIqVCquC8cuxxYvCug-1A--9xk1AOleBiWzPP82o8TfOK4LcES3xOqOwZZlhgwhRTUjxpjolgrGWEsaf1XfttBfhRc5LzN4wJZ5143hwRISUnTBw3cbZaJVjp4uOEZibFnNH1NhS_CYDmk_VGl5gymo-bFH9CRmUN6BIKmJ0RHbrWwU8rSPV4h24g7KLy2m9QiWjhv0Pw6xgturlv5BfNM6dDhpeH-7T5-uHqy8WndvH54_xitmgNo7i0ztFeWEc7oBhj1XU9l2BVx1jPDV8uQYOSrAclFPSc9NISRZyxtc5tlelpc7bPrWP_2EIuw-izgRD0BHGbB646KTFjFSR7cPf3BG7YJD_qdDcQPNxveXi05eq8PoRvlyPYv8ZhrRV4cwB0Njq4pCfj8wPXEUKpVLxy7_ecn1xMo_4VU7BD0Xchpj8S_dcc4r_6I2sot4X-Bj_eq3Y</recordid><startdate>200807</startdate><enddate>200807</enddate><creator>Larrabee, Glenn J.</creator><general>Psychology Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200807</creationdate><title>Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios</title><author>Larrabee, Glenn J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aggregation</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brain Injuries - diagnosis</topic><topic>Brain Injuries - psychology</topic><topic>Chaining</topic><topic>False Negative Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Likelihood Functions</topic><topic>Likelihood ratios</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malingering</topic><topic>Malingering - diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multiple indicators</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Larrabee, Glenn J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical neuropsychologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Larrabee, Glenn J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios</atitle><jtitle>Clinical neuropsychologist</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><date>2008-07</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>666</spage><epage>679</epage><pages>666-679</pages><issn>1385-4046</issn><eissn>1744-4144</eissn><abstract>Recent literature shows that aggregating across multiple symptom validity test (SVT) failures increases the probability of malingering over use of one indicator alone, supporting the criteria proposed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) that require multiple sources of evidence for diagnosis of malingering. The present study reanalyzes with likelihood ratios data previously published by Larrabee ( 2003a ) on litigants with definite malingering, contrasted with non-malingering patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Chaining of likelihood ratios demonstrated an increase in probability of malingering when multiple test scores were positive, with values ranging from. 713 to. 837 for one failed SVT,. 936 to. 973 for two failed SVTs, and. 989 to. 995 for three failed SVTs. Posterior probabilities of malingering derived from chaining of likelihood ratios closely approximated those obtained by direct computation of Positive Predictive Power, particularly when three SVTs were failed. Moreover, the five SVTs employed in these analyses did not intercorrelate significantly, satisfying the assumption that the tests be independent for chaining of likelihood ratios. Posterior probabilities derived from chaining of likelihood ratios, holding sensitivity and specificity constant at. 50 and. 90, respectively, and varying the malingering base rate from. 10 to. 90, showed a wide range of values,. 357 to. 978, for failure of one SVT. Failure of two SVTs yielded probabilities ranging from. 735 to. 996. Failure of three SVTs yielded values ranging from. 933 to. 999, demonstrating high probabilities of malingering irrespective of the base rate. These data support the Slick et al . recommendation that multiple positive findings are necessary for diagnosis of malingering. Suggestions are made for modification of the Slick et al . criteria based on the current results.</abstract><cop>Hove</cop><pub>Psychology Press</pub><pmid>17886147</pmid><doi>10.1080/13854040701494987</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1385-4046
ispartof Clinical neuropsychologist, 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.666-679
issn 1385-4046
1744-4144
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69288044
source Taylor & Francis
subjects Adult
Aggregation
Biological and medical sciences
Brain Injuries - diagnosis
Brain Injuries - psychology
Chaining
False Negative Reactions
Female
Humans
Likelihood Functions
Likelihood ratios
Male
Malingering
Malingering - diagnosis
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Multiple indicators
Neuropsychological Tests
Predictive Value of Tests
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Sensitivity and Specificity
Techniques and methods
title Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T17%3A04%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aggregation%20Across%20Multiple%20Indicators%20Improves%20the%20Detection%20of%20Malingering:%20Relationship%20to%20Likelihood%20Ratios&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20neuropsychologist&rft.au=Larrabee,%20Glenn%20J.&rft.date=2008-07&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=666&rft.epage=679&rft.pages=666-679&rft.issn=1385-4046&rft.eissn=1744-4144&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/13854040701494987&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E69288044%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-ff357df32e3000922568ed924456c6bbeae9845e979e56158d191fcdeae6dff33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69288044&rft_id=info:pmid/17886147&rfr_iscdi=true