Motor Reaction Times as an Embedded Measure of Performance Validity: a Study with a Sample of Austrian Early Retirement Claimants

Among embedded measures of performance validity, reaction time parameters appear to be less common. However, their potential may be underestimated. In the German-speaking countries, reaction time is often examined using the Alertness subtest of the Test of Attention Performance (TAP). Several previous studies have examined its suitability for validity assessment. The current study was conceived to examine a variety of reaction time parameters of the TAP Alertness subtest with a sample of 266 Austrian civil forensic patients. Classification results from the Word Memory Test (WMT) were used as an external indicator to distinguish between valid and invalid symptom presentations. Results demonstrated that the WMT fail group performed worse in reaction time as well as its intraindividual variation across trials when compared to the WMT pass group. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed areas under the curve of .775–.804. Logistic regression models indicated the parameter intraindividual variation of motor reaction time with warning sound as being the best predictor for invalid test performance. Suggested cut scores yielded a sensitivity of .62 and a specificity of .90, or .45 and .95, respectively, when the accepted false-positive rate was set lower. The results encourage the use of the Alertness subtest as an embedded measure of performance validity.

A-224 Clinical Utility of Grooved Pegboard as an Additional Embedded Measure of Performance Validity

Objective Previously, the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPB) has shown potential as an embedded measure of performance validity (PVT) using a T-score cutoff for either hand (≤ 29) or both hands (≤ 31). This study sought to validate these cutoffs with established PVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test [MSVT], Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test [NV-MSVT], and Reliable Digit Span [RDS]). Method Subjects (N = 190) were primarily Caucasian (85%) and male (81%). Average age and education were 41 (SD = 11.62) and 16 years (SD = 2.35), respectively. Participants were stratified as GPB “pass or fail” based on previously proposed cutoff criteria. MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS were also dichotomized as pass or fail based on manual or conventional recommendations. Results Chi-Square analyses revealed significant associations between GPB “fails” for both hands and MSVT, NV-MSVT, and RDS (χ2 (1, n = 190) ranging from 5.80 to 15.98, Phi ranging from .18 to .29, p ranging from < .05 to < .0001). Similar findings were observed for dominant hand “fails”; however, non-dominant hand was only related to the MSVT. Sensitivity and specificity values from the GPB measures ranged from .47 to .58 and from .89 to .92, respectively. Positive and negative predictive power ranged from .38 to .45 and .93 to .94, respectively. Conclusion These data demonstrate the relative utility of the GPB as an embedded PVT. In particular, dominant and both hand cutoffs are likely to be more clinically useful in determining sub-optimal performance. However, as sensitivity is relatively low, this measure should not be employed as the sole PVT administered.