Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:52:34.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

87 Examining the use of the Embedded Performance Validity Test in the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised Among Spanish-Speaking Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2023

Liliam R Castillo*
Affiliation:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, New York, USA. The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA.
Christine M Bushell
Affiliation:
Yeshiva University, New York, New York, USA.
Sofia Coll
Affiliation:
Yeshiva University, New York, New York, USA.
Lilian Salinas
Affiliation:
NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York, New York, USA
William B Barr
Affiliation:
NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York, New York, USA
*
Correspondence: Liliam R. Castillo, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

The Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Recognition Discrimination (RD) index has emerged as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). However, there do not appear to be any studies that have examined its utility in Spanish-speaking samples. This pilot study examined the classification accuracy of the BVMT-R RD for detecting performance invalidity in a Spanish-speaking forensic sample.

Participants and Methods:

This cross-sectional study utilized a sample of 89 Spanish speakers that were administered the BVMT-R during an outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Out of the 89 Spanish speakers, 43 were subjects in litigation, 32 were neurological patients evaluated for clinical purposes, and 14 were healthy controls. The sample was 67% male/33% female, 53% South American, 33% Caribbean (Dominican, Puerto Rican, Cuban), 10% Central American, 3% North American (Mexican), and 1% Spanish, with a mean age of 44.2 years (SD = 14.2; range = 20-78) and mean education of 11 years (SD = 3.7; range = 0-20). Test administration for each patient was completed in Spanish by a fluent, Spanish-speaking examiner. In total, 64/89 (72%) were classified as valid and 25/89 (28%) as invalid based on performance across the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), at least one additional PVT (Rey-15 item memory test; Rey Dot Counting Test; Reliable Digit Span; WHO-AVLT recognition trial) and objective diagnostic criteria identifying invalid performance. Analyses included three univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA), with the groups (healthy vs neurological vs litigation) as independent variables and performance on BVMT-RD as the dependent variable.

Results:

Statistically significant differences among the groups were found F(2,86)=8.32, p < .001). Post-hoc analysis (Scheffe test) showed the mean of the litigation group to be significantly lower than the means of the other two groups (healthy and neurological), which showed no difference between them. An ANOVA with validity groups as the fixed factor and BVMT-R RD index as the dependent variable was significant F(1,85)= 21.02, p <.001). Results of a ROC curve analysis yielded statistically significant AUC (.794). The optimal cut-score was BVMT-R RD < 5 (48% sensitivity/88% specificity).

Conclusions:

Results of the BVMT-R RD index in this Spanish-speaking population differed by subgroup, with worse performance seen in individuals involved in litigation, compared to those who were not (healthy and neurological). Notably, the BVMT-R RD index significantly differentiated validity groups, maintaining adequate sensitivity and good specificity. Overall, results demonstrate promise for BVMT-RD as a PVT for Spanish-speaking populations.

Type
Poster Session 08: Assessment | Psychometrics | Noncredible Presentations | Forensic
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2023