Victoria Symptom Validity Test
by Daniel Slick, PhD, Grace Hopp, MA
& Esther Strauss, PhD, and PAR Staff
Score Report/Interpretive Guide
-Client Information-
|
Client Name: Sample Report |
Complaints of Memory Dysfunction: Yes |
|
ID Number: 123-45-6789-0 |
Possible Litigation: Yes |
|
Date of Testing: 10/13/1997 |
Date of Injury: 01/01/1997 |
|
Date of Birth: 10/28/1965 |
Loss of Consciousness (LOC): Yes |
|
Age: 31 |
Duration of LOC: 2 hours |
|
Gender: Male |
Length of Post Traumatic Amnesia: 2 days |
|
Education: |
Results of Neuroimaging: |
|
Reported Ethnicity: |
Setting: |
|
Marital Status: |
Previous Head Injury: |
|
|
Previous Testing: |
|
|
Sensory/Motor Impairments: |
|
|
Other Neurological/Medical Disorders: |
This report is designed to assist in the interpretation of performance on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT). The VSVT provides one measure of the level of effort expended on test-taking by clients referred for psychological or neuropsychological evaluations.
The VSVT and other forced-choice tests are often referred to as "symptom validity tests," rather than "malingering tests," because unusually poor performance may reflect poor effort, deliberate feigning, exaggeration of real cognitive deficits, factors independent of conscious dissimulation and external rewards, or any combination of the above. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to recognize that VSVT scores are, at best, capable of indicating that factors other than cognitive impairment may be influencing a clientís performance. Even in cases where financial or other incentives exist and where performance on the VSVT is in the questionable range, the client may be legitimately impaired, acting without conscious intent, or a combination of both.
The clinician using the VSVT should be knowledgeable about the research and ethical issues related to assessing symptom validity. Considerable caution and good judgment should be exercised when interpreting the results of symptom validity tests such as VSVT due to the potentially serious implications of results suggesting less than optimal effort. The clinician is strongly encouraged to employ additional measures to assess effort and motivation whenever the clientís VSVT performance raises concerns about the level of effort expended during an evaluation. More reliable and accurate conclusions about a clientís motivation and effort can best be made through the use of multiple assessment instruments and additional sources of information.
Copyright © 1997 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
All rights reserved
VSVT Summary Scores
|
|
Binomial |
Suggested |
Items Correct score |
Raw score |
p value |
interpretation |
Easy Items Correct |
20/24 |
0.9999 |
Valid |
Difficult Items Correct |
13/24 |
0.7294 |
Questionable |
Total Items Correct |
33/48 |
0.9972 |
Valid |
Note.
Raw scores indicate the number of items correct/maximum number of items in the category.
Between-Group Comparisons: Items Correct Scores
|
|
Comparison Groups |
|||||
|
Client |
|
Control |
Feigning |
Comp |
Non-comp |
|
Items Correct score |
(n = 1) |
|
(n = 95) |
(n = 43) |
(n = 205) |
(n = 32) |
|
Easy Items Correct |
20 |
M |
23.97 |
20.30 |
23.33 |
23.53 |
|
|
|
SD |
0.18 |
4.35 |
1.96 |
1.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difficult Items Correct |
13 |
M |
23.44 |
10.95 |
20.17 |
22.63 |
|
|
|
SD |
0.92 |
6.06 |
4.80 |
1.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Items Correct |
33 |
M |
47.41 |
31.26 |
43.50 |
46.16 |
|
|
|
SD |
0.92 |
9.05 |
6.08 |
2.59 |
Note.
Comp = Compensation-seeking; Non-comp = Non-compensation seeking.
Descriptive Statistics for Response Latency Variables
|
|
Classification |
|
Response Latency scores (seconds) |
Valid (above chance) |
Questionable (at chance) |
Invalid (below chance) |
Easy Items |
|
|
|
M |
1.67 |
2.84 |
3.40 |
SD |
0.73 |
1.45 |
1.02 |
95% Confidence Interval |
1.58 - 1.77 |
2.26 - 3.42 |
2.81 - 3.99 |
|
|
|
|
Difficult Items |
|
|
|
M |
2.68 |
5.50 |
4.70 |
SD |
1.28 |
3.44 |
1.67 |
95% Confidence Interval |
2.52 - 2.85 |
4.11 - 6.89 |
3.73 - 5.67 |
Note.
Number of respondents within the three classification groups are as follows: Valid (n = 135); Questionable (n = 20); and Invalid (n = 15).
Between-Group Comparisons: Response Latency
|
|
|
Comparison Groups
|
|
||
Response Latency scores (seconds) |
Client |
Control |
Feigning |
Comp |
Non-comp |
|
(n = 1) |
(n = 95) |
(n = 43) |
(n = 205) |
(n = 32) |
||
Easy Items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M |
0.78 |
1.29 |
2.48 |
2.06 |
1.61 |
|
SD |
0.36 |
0.37 |
1.05 |
1.04 |
0.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difficult Items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M |
0.87 |
1.93 |
4.08 |
3.45 |
2.61 |
|
SD |
0.47 |
0.51 |
2.12 |
2.02 |
1.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M |
0.82 |
1.61 |
3.28 |
2.76 |
2.11 |
|
SD |
0.42 |
0.41 |
1.43 |
1.45 |
0.80 |
Note.
Comp = Compensation-seeking; Non-comp = Non-compensation seeking.
Item Scores for Block 1
|
Response accuracy |
|
|||
|
Correct |
Incorrect |
Item type |
Response Latency (seconds) |
|
Item 1 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.88 |
Item 2 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.66 |
Item 3 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
1.15 |
Item 4 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.77 |
Item 5 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.55 |
Item 6 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.88 |
Item 7 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.76 |
Item 8 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
1.04 |
Item 9 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.66 |
Item 10 |
|
X |
Easy |
|
0.93 |
Item 11 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
1.05 |
Item 12 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
1.76 |
Item 13 |
|
X |
Easy |
|
1.48 |
Item 14 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.71 |
Item 15 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.98 |
Item 16 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
1.21 |
Score Totals for Block 1 (16 items)
Easy Items Correct = 6 |
|
Easy Items Response Latency = 0.88 |
Difficult Items Correct = 5 |
|
Difficult Items Response Latency = 1.06 |
Total Items Correct = 11 |
|
Total Items Response Latency = 0.97 |
Note.
Retention interval for Block 1 was 5 seconds.
Item Scores for Block 2
|
Response accuracy |
|
|||
|
Correct |
Incorrect |
Item type |
Response Latency (seconds) |
|
Item 1 |
|
X |
Easy |
|
1.48 |
Item 2 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
2.04 |
Item 3 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
1.26 |
Item 4 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.88 |
Item 5 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.99 |
Item 6 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.65 |
Item 7 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.77 |
Item 8 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.55 |
Item 9 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
1.04 |
Item 10 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.61 |
Item 11 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
1.10 |
Item 12 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.38 |
Item 13 |
|
X |
Easy |
|
0.49 |
Item 14 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.22 |
Item 15 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.00 |
Item 16 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.17 |
Score Totals for Block 2 (16 items)
Easy Items Correct = 6 |
|
Easy Items Response Latency = 0.86 |
Difficult Items Correct = 4 |
|
Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.72 |
Total Items Correct = 10 |
|
Total Items Response Latency = 0.79 |
Note.
Retention interval for Block 2 was 10 seconds.
Item Scores for Block 3
|
Response accuracy |
|
|||
|
Correct |
Incorrect |
Item type |
Response Latency (seconds) |
|
Item 1 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
1.10 |
Item 2 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
1.26 |
Item 3 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.66 |
Item 4 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.60 |
Item 5 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.50 |
Item 6 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.60 |
Item 7 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.71 |
Item 8 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
1.04 |
Item 9 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
1.21 |
Item 10 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
1.21 |
Item 11 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.55 |
Item 12 |
X |
|
|
Difficult |
0.60 |
Item 13 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.66 |
Item 14 |
|
X |
|
Difficult |
0.33 |
Item 15 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.22 |
Item 16 |
X |
|
Easy |
|
0.16 |
Score Totals for Block 3 (16 items)
Easy Items Correct = 8 |
|
Easy Items Response Latency = 0.60 |
Difficult Items Correct = 4 |
|
Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.83 |
Total Items Correct = 12 |
|
Total Items Response Latency = 0.71 |
Note.
Retention interval for Block 3 was 15 seconds.
Score Totals for Blocks 1-3 (48 items)
Easy Items Correct = 20 |
|
Easy Items Response Latency = 0.78 |
Difficult Items Correct = 13 |
|
Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.87 |
Total Items Correct = 33 |
|
Total Items Response Latency = 0.82 |
Right-Left Preference score: 0.13 |
(Scores < -0.6 indicate an extreme left-side preference; scores > 0.6 indicate an extreme right-side preference) |