Poster Abstracts

Abstract

The use of embedded Performance Validity Tests (ePVTs) and Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) has grown substantially in recent years. They demonstrate important advantages over traditional, stand-alone PVTs in that they allow for continuous sampling of effort over the course of the evaluation. The current study explored whether type of potential secondary gain differentially predicted performance on a variety of common ePVTs and SVTs to determine their clinical utility across possible secondary gain motivations (i.e., none, litigation, disability, or ADHD). ANOVA analyses were conducted with a clinical sample of 2,368 patients aged 16-92 (M = 52.58, SD = 20.50), who were administered at least one ePVT or SVT during their evaluations. Type of secondary gain predicted significant differences in scores on CVLT-2 Forced Choice Recognition Trial, WCST Failure to Maintain Set, MMPI-2 Lie scale, PAI Positive and Negative Impression Management Scales, and Stroop Color and Word subtests. The greatest group differences were seen between individuals in litigation compared to no identifiable secondary gain. Groups did not differ on Booklet Category Test errors, MMPI-2 Lees-Haley or K scales, or Reliable Digit Span. Thus, these latter ePVTs/SVTs may not be as clinically useful in detecting potential for secondary gain amongst clinical samples.

First AuthorEmily E Graupman
Second AuthorErin T Kaseda
Third AuthorGenesis Martinez
Fourth AuthorLeslie Guidotti-Breting