Biomedical subjects

M Volbrecht

Publications and source records attributed to M Volbrecht.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1999

Driving is more than pedal pushing.

The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of neuropsychological assessment for predicting driving competency (as opposed to driving skill). Participants were divided into 2 groups, currently driving and not currently driving, based on patient and family member reports of driving ability. In addition, driving participants were only included if there had been no accidents or driving-related injuries in the past year. Stepwise discriminant function analysis was utilized to identify measures that were predictive but not redundant, thereby resulting in a shortened battery. The discriminant function analysis was able to correctly classify 94.4% of the overall sample. A factor analysis was used to identify the constructs that comprised the final short battery. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that a short neuropsychological battery was able to identify individuals who were competent to drive and those who were not competent to drive.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed1999

Detection of malingerers using the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.

The detection of malingered performance on neuropsychological tests is important for the clinical practitioner. However, malingering is often impossible to detect based on individual test scores. This article suggests that the relation of scores to one another (profile pattern) adds a dimension to identifying malingered performance not available through examination of individual test scores. This article examines Memory Error Patterns (MEPs) of the Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial (RCFT; Meyers & Meyers, 1995). The patterns were found to be good predictors of malingering. Malingering participants and simulators produce storage and attention MEPs whereas these 2 patterns do not appear in mild brain injury participants who have adequate motivation. Therefore, MEPs on the RCFT appear to be a method that can be used to detect malingered performance. It is important that the validity of the individual neuropsychological test performance used in an assessment be evaluated as part of the interpretation process.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Malingering and mild brain injury: how low is too low.

The purpose of this study was to investigate potential validity markers for 4 commonly used neuropsychological tests. Participants were divided into 5 groups: moderate/severe brain injury (n = 27), mild brain injury--nonlitigating (n = 35), normal controls (n = 30), mild brain injury--litigating (n = 49), and malingering "actors" (n = 20). Participants completed a flexible neuropsychological battery that included the 4 tests of interest (Judgment of Line Orientation, Token Test, Dichotic Listening, and 20-item forced choice). Results demonstrated cutoff levels on all 4 tests below which people with mild brain injury would not be expected to fall. The fact that some litigants, but no nonlitigants, fell below these cutoff levels suggests these tests and their cutoff levels may be used appropriately as internal validity markers. There was 100% specificity and 95% sensitivity found when all 4 tests were used together (1-test criteria) to separate litigants, nonlitigants, and actors. It is suggested that further examination of these tests and other neuropsychological tests, be completed so that, eventually, all neuropsychological tests will have internal validity markers.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Validation of reliable digits for detection of malingering.

This study is a cross validation of the previous work by Greffenstein, Baker, and Gola (1994) and Greiffenstein, Gola, and Baker (1995) on the Reliable Digits (RD) method of detecting possible malingering. This study consisted of 47 mild brain-injured litigating and 49 mild brain-injured non-litigating participants. The result of this study was that only 4.1% of the non-litigating participants were classified as malingering by RD, while 48.9% of the litigating participants were classified as malingering by RD. Comparing litigating participants' performance on a forced choice task with their RD revealed that 77.8% (7/9) who failed the forced choice task also failed RD. RD classified more litigating patients as malingering than did the forced choice task and none of the non-litigating participants failed forced choice. These findings underscore the previous recommendations of Greiffenstein et al. (1994, 1995), that it is important to assess motivation on specific neuropsychological tests and that motivation on neuropsychological tests is not an all or none phenomenon.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Validation of memory error patterns on the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.

The identification and use of Memory Error Patterns (MEPs) for the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial is a new concept. The current series of experiments first validates the presence of MEPs using a cluster analysis, then provides base rate information on a large group of normal control participants. Finally, the MEPs of various clinical groups are examined. The findings of these studies support the presence of MEPs and the clinical rules used to identify these MEPs. Normal control participants are expected to achieve Normal/Other MEPs, whereas mild to moderately impaired participants will generally produce Retrieval or Normal/Other MEPs. In addition, severely impaired participants will produce Storage, Encoding, or Attention MEPs. The usefulness of the MEP in clinical practice is discussed.

Journal Article↗