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

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors01:17

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors

A survey team is tasked with determining the elevation difference between points Point A and Point B, separated by uneven terrain. They use a leveling instrument and a leveling rod.Common MistakesMisreading the Rod: During a backsight reading at Point A, the instrumentman observes the rod partially obscured by tall grass. Instead of reading 1.135 m, they mistakenly record 1.735 m due to the misalignment of the crosshair with the wrong graduation. This error adds 0.600 m to all subsequent...
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which child was...
Naturalistic Observations02:30

Naturalistic Observations

If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances...
Impact: Problem Solving01:26

Impact: Problem Solving

In an experiment conducted during a Mars mission, a rover propels a projectile with an initial velocity, and the projectile rebounds after colliding with the Martian surface. To ascertain the maximum height attained by the projectile after this collision, the known restitution coefficient and acceleration due to gravity are employed.
By designating the launch point as the origin and utilizing kinematic equations, the vertical component of the projectile's velocity at the point of impact is...
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Toughness and Hardness of Aggregate01:22

Toughness and Hardness of Aggregate

Toughness and hardness are critical properties of aggregate materials used in concrete, particularly on pavement surfaces and industrial flooring subjected to heavy loads. Toughness is defined as the aggregate's resistance to failure by impact and is measured by the aggregate impact value (AIV). For this, the aggregate impact value test is performed, wherein the impact is delivered by a standard hammer, which falls freely under its own weight onto the aggregates. The aggregates fragment in the...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Depressive Symptoms in Concussed Youth Athletes: Factor Analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

Developmental neuropsychology·2026
Same author

Concussion in the Wild: Clinical Utility of Ambulatory Assessment of Symptoms and Everyday Exposures in Adolescents and Adults with Concussion.

Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists·2025
Same author

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life and Perceptions of Recovery in Adults Who Received Clinical Profiles Informed Care for Concussion.

The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation·2025
Same author

Concussion knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: a comparison study of youth athletes and their parents.

The Physician and sportsmedicine·2025
Same author

The Co-Occurrence of Vestibular/Ocular Motor Provocation and State Anxiety in Adolescents and Young Adults with Concussion.

Journal of neurotrauma·2024
Same author

Frequency of low ImPACT scores among adolescent and young adult student-athletes with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and/or learning disorder.

Frontiers in neurology·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 14, 2026

Blast Quantification Using Hopkinson Pressure Bars
09:41

Blast Quantification Using Hopkinson Pressure Bars

Published on: July 5, 2016

"Sandbagging" baseline test performance on ImPACT, without detection, is more difficult than it appears.

Philip Schatz1, Colette Glatts

  • 1Department of Psychology, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA. pschatz@sju.edu

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology : the Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists
|February 14, 2013
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Detecting poor effort on neurocognitive tests is crucial. This study shows that sandbagging, or intentionally performing poorly on baseline tests, can be effectively identified using specific validity measures.

More Related Videos

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
14:52

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

Published on: December 11, 2013

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 14, 2026

Blast Quantification Using Hopkinson Pressure Bars
09:41

Blast Quantification Using Hopkinson Pressure Bars

Published on: July 5, 2016

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
14:52

Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

Published on: December 11, 2013

Area of Science:

  • Neuropsychology
  • Cognitive Assessment
  • Forensic Psychology

Background:

  • Malingering, or feigning illness, on cognitive tests can undermine accurate diagnosis.
  • Previous research shows limited success in detecting poor effort on baseline neurocognitive tests.
  • The ability to intentionally perform poorly (sandbagging) on baseline assessments needs further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of different methods in detecting intentional poor performance on baseline neurocognitive tests.
  • To evaluate the efficacy of ImPACT, MSVT, and BESS in identifying sandbagging.
  • To determine if coaching improves or hinders the detection of malingering.

Main Methods:

  • An analog study involving three groups: best effort, uncoached malingering (naïve), and coached malingering.
  • Participants completed the ImPACT, MSVT, and BESS.
  • Performance was analyzed to identify individuals feigning deficits.

Main Results:

  • The MSVT detected a higher percentage of malingerers (80% naïve, 90% coached) than ImPACT's automatic flagging (60% naïve, 75% coached).
  • Integrating additional indicators into ImPACT significantly improved detection rates (95% naïve, 100% coached).
  • Coached malingerers were more readily detected than uncoached participants.

Conclusions:

  • Intentional poor performance (sandbagging) on baseline neurocognitive testing is detectable.
  • The MSVT and enhanced ImPACT protocols are effective tools for identifying malingering.
  • Validity measures are essential for ensuring the integrity of cognitive assessments.