Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Reliability and Validity01:29

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Further validation of PCL-5 symptom validity indices in cross-cultural forensic settings.

The Clinical neuropsychologist·2026
Same author

Examining intraindividual variability in neuropsychological test performance: Implications for identifying cognitive impairment and tracers of invalidity.

Psychological assessment·2026
Same author

A Population Wide Analysis of MCMI-IV Symptom Validity Scales Administered in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Journal of personality assessment·2025
Same author

Explaining heterogeneity: Latent profiles of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Applied neuropsychology. Adult·2025
Same author

When failure on one performance validity test demonstrates invalid neuropsychological responding.

The Clinical neuropsychologist·2025
Same author

Regorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Practice (REFINE): A Prospective, Observational Study.

Liver cancer·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 26, 2026

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing
09:00

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Published on: August 16, 2024

Reliable Digit Span: a systematic review and cross-validation study.

Ryan W Schroeder1, Philip Twumasi-Ankrah, Lyle E Baade

  • 1University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS 67206, USA. ryan.w.schroeder.psyd@hotmail.com

Assessment
|December 14, 2011
PubMed
Summary

Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a symptom validity test. Caution is advised for specific cutoffs in certain clinical groups to ensure accurate interpretation and enhance clinical utility.

More Related Videos

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)
10:58

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)

Published on: August 28, 2021

Assessing Working Memory in Children: The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children – Working Memory (CABC-WM)
09:05

Assessing Working Memory in Children: The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children – Working Memory (CABC-WM)

Published on: June 12, 2017

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 26, 2026

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing
09:00

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Published on: August 16, 2024

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)
10:58

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)

Published on: August 28, 2021

Assessing Working Memory in Children: The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children – Working Memory (CABC-WM)
09:05

Assessing Working Memory in Children: The Comprehensive Assessment Battery for Children – Working Memory (CABC-WM)

Published on: June 12, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Neuropsychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Background:

  • Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a widely researched symptom validity test.
  • Previous studies have limitations affecting clinical generalizability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To address limitations in existing RDS research.
  • To enhance the clinical utility of RDS through systematic review and cross-validation.
  • To calculate sensitivity and specificity rates for RDS cutoffs.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic review of existing RDS literature (1994-2011).
  • Cross-validation of RDS cutoffs (≤6 and ≤7) across diverse clinical groups.
  • Calculation of sensitivity and specificity rates.

Main Results:

  • Cross-validation results align with previously reported literature.
  • Caution is recommended for the ≤7 cutoff across all clinical groups.
  • Specific caution is advised for the ≤6 cutoff in groups with cerebrovascular accident, severe memory disorders, mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and non-native English speakers.

Conclusions:

  • The study enhances the clinical utility of RDS by addressing research limitations.
  • Recommendations are provided for the appropriate use of RDS cutoffs in various clinical populations.
  • Users should exercise caution with specific RDS cutoffs in vulnerable patient groups.