Minimizing false positive error with multiple performance validity tests: response to Bilder, Sugar, and Hellemann...

Area of Science:

• Neuropsychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Clinical Psychology

Background:

• Debate exists regarding the empirical support for using multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) in individual case evaluations.
• Previous studies suggest that a criterion of failing ≥2 PVTs/Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) does not substantially increase false positive rates.
• This contrasts with arguments that empirical support is lacking for this approach.

Purpose of the Study:

• To re-evaluate data supporting the use of multiple PVTs/SVTs in individual case assessment.
• To determine if a criterion of ≥2 failures maintains acceptable false positive rates.
• To discuss strategies for minimizing false positive errors in performance validity testing.

Main Methods:

• Reconsideration of data from Larrabee (2014) concerning PVT/SVT failures.
• Analysis of false positive rates using a criterion of ≥2 out of up to 7 PVTs/SVTs.
• Discussion of clinical case factors influencing false positive identification.

Main Results:

• A criterion of ≥2 PVTs/SVTs failed out of up to 7 tests keeps false positive rates near or below 10% for individuals with genuine disorders.
• This finding supports the utility of multiple PVTs/SVTs in individual case evaluation.
• The likelihood of invalid performance increases as the number of failed PVTs/SVTs rises.

Conclusions:

• The use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) with a criterion of ≥2 failures is empirically supported for individual case assessment.
• This method effectively minimizes false positive rates in clinical populations.
• Strategies for managing potential false positives include adjusting criteria for at-risk individuals and utilizing clinical history.