A meta-analysis of the accuracy of embedded performance validity indicators from the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status

Objective: Meta-analyze the embedded performance validity tests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), emphasizing two topics: diagnostic accuracy and relationships with demographics. Method: Literature was identified through a review of PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Bivariate linear mixed models were used for diagnostic accuracy analyses. Random-effects analysis of correlations with demographic variables was also used for the Effort Index. Results: Diagnostic accuracy analyses utilized 12 studies of the Effort Index (EI; N = 1469) and 6 studies of the Effort Scale (ES; N = 854). The EI was found to have a sensitivity of .44 (95% CI: .28 - .62), specificity of .87 (95% CI: .78 - .93), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 5.41 (95% CI: 3.74 - 7.58). The ES produced a sensitivity of .67 (95% CI: .50 - .81), specificity of .72 (95% CI: .53 - .85), and DOR of 5.97 (95% CI: 1.70 - 15.30). Meta-analysis of correlations utilized 14 samples of the EI (N = 3781), but insufficient data were available for the ES. Correlations between the EI and age (r = .10, 95% CI: .05 - .16), education (r = -.11, 95% CI: -.18 to -.04), and the RBANS Total Scale (r = -.45, 95% CI: -.62 to -.24) were significant. These results appeared to be robust to publication bias. Conclusion: Results support use of the EI over the ES; however, the latter is comparatively less studied and did not have similar variability in reported cut-off scores. ES accuracy statistics were significantly predicted by sample variables, which may be related to its relatively fewer studies. Both measures should be used cautiously in the context of genuine cognitive impairment.