ArticlePsychology & neuroscience2024
Measures of performance validity for Hispanic/Latin American adults: A PRISMA systematic review.
Article in Psychology & neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Use of performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess suboptimal performance has become a recommended feature in neuropsychological evaluations. However, most of the literature has examined the utility of PVTs in primarily non-Hispanic White, monolingual English-speaking samples. Given the continual growth of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations, especially Hispanic/Latin Americans (H/Ls), it is necessary to provide an updated review on the available literature involving the use of PVTs in H/L adults. Methods: We conducted a systematic review that examined the available literature surrounding use of performance validity measures in H/L adults. This review identified evidence for the utility of PVTs in assessing invalid performance in H/Ls and compiled psychometric properties related to these measures, specifically rates of specificity and sensitivity when available. Results: We identified six standalone and four embedded performance validity measures that have been examined in H/Ls. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was identified as the PVT most studied in various H/L heritage groups. Across the studies reviewed, adjustments to cutoff scores are generally recommended for the majority of PVTs discussed. Within H/Ls, specificity rates tend to be bolstered when sociocultural factors, like education, are considered. Conclusions: Recommended cutoff scores across the different PVTs reviewed are not typically suitable for use in heritage groups of H/L adults, especially in groups that include adults with lower levels of education and literacy. Therefore, education may need to be considered when applying cutoffs to these populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.