Introducing a forced-choice recognition task to the California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s Version

The importance of performance validity tests (PVTs) is increasingly recognized in pediatric neuropsychology. To date, research has focused on investigating whether PVTs designed for adults function similarly in children. The downward extension of adult cutoffs is counter-intuitive considering the robust effect of age-related changes in basic cognitive skills in children and adolescents. The purpose of this study was to examine the signal detection properties of a forced-choice recognition trial (FCR-C) for the California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s Version. A total of 72 children aged 6–15 years (M = 11.1 , SD = 2.6) completed the FCR-C as part of a larger neuropsychological assessment battery. Cross-validation analyses revealed that the FCR-C had good signal detection performance against reference PVTs. The first level of failure (≤14/15) produced the best combination of overall sensitivity (.31) and specificity (.87). A more conservative FCR-C cutoff (≤13) resulted in a predictable trade-off between sensitivity (.15) and specificity (.94), but also a net loss in discriminant power. Lowering the cutoff to ≤12 resulted in a slight improvement in specificity (.97) but further deterioration in sensitivity (.14). These preliminary findings suggest that the FCR-C has the potential to become the newest addition to a growing arsenal of pediatric PVTs.     

Evaluating the Impact of Careless Responding on Aggregated-Scores: To Filter Unmotivated Examinees or Not?

When examinees' test-taking motivation is questionable, practitioners must determine whether careless responding is of practical concern and if so, decide on the best approach to filter such responses. As there has been insufficient research on these topics, the objectives of this study were to: a) evaluate the degree of underestimation in the true mean when careless responses are present, and b) compare the effectiveness of two filtering procedures in purifying biased aggregated-scores. Results demonstrated that: a) the true mean was underestimated by around 0.20 SDs if the total amount of careless responses exceeded 6.25%, 12.5%, and 12.5% for easy, moderately difficult, and difficult tests, respectively, and b) listwise deleting data from unmotivated examinees artificially inflated the true mean by as much as .42 SDs when ability was related to careless responding. Findings from this study have implications for when and how practitioners should handle careless responses for group-based low-stakes assessments.