| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Are the Original and Second Edition of the California Verbal Learning Test Equally Accurate in Detecting Malingering?University of New Orleans Jefferson Neurobehavioral Group, Los Angeles, kgreve{at}uno.edu
University of New Orleans
University of New Orleans Jefferson Neurobehavioral Group, Los Angeles
University of New Orleans This two-part study sought to determine the equivalence of the California Verbal Learning Tests (CVLT-1 and CVLT-2) in the detection of malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and chronic pain. Part 1 compared a variety of scores from the two versions in carefully matched patient groups. Part 2 used criterion groups (known-groups) methodology to examine the relative rates of false positive (FP) errors across the two versions. Participants were 442 TBI (CVLT-1 = 310; CVLT-2 = 132) and 378 chronic pain patients (CVLT-1 = 250; CVLT-2 = 128). Overall, the CVLT-2 was more difficult than the CVLT-1, with the chronic pain patients showing larger version effects than the TBI patients. The two versions of the CVLT were equally accurate in detecting malingering in TBI and chronic pain. However, they were not interchangeable. The use of CVLT-1 cutoffs with the CVLT-2 may result in an increased risk of FP error. Appropriate cutoff adjustment in clinical practice is recommended.
Key Words: California Verbal Learning Test • memory • malingering • traumatic brain injury • chronic pain • assessment
This version was published on September
1, 2009 Assessment, Vol. 16, No. 3,
237-248 (2009) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
