4.2 Article

RBANS Embedded Measures of Suboptimal Effort in Dementia: Effort Scale Has a Lower Failure Rate than the Effort Index

Journal

ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 1-6

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acu070

Keywords

Dementia; Sub-optimal effort; RBANS; Validity indicators; Malingering; Geriatrics

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The importance of evaluating effort in neuropsychological assessments has been widely acknowledged, but measuring effort in the context of dementia remains challenging due to the impact of dementia severity on effort measure scores. Two embedded measures have been developed for the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS; Randolph, C., Tierney, M. C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N. (1998). The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20 (3), 310-319): the Effort Index (EI; Silverberg, N. D., Wertheimer, J. C., & Fichtenberg, N. L. (2007). An effort index for the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS). Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21 (5), 841-854) and the Effort Scale (ES; Novitski, J., Steele, S., Karantzoulis, S., & Randolph, C. (2012). The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status effort scale. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27 (2), 190-195). We explored failure rates on these effort measures in a non-litigatingmixed dementia sample (N = 145). Failure rate on the EI was high (48%) and associated with dementia severity. In contrast, failure on the ES was 14% but differed based on type of dementia. ES failure was low(4%) when dementia was due to Alzheimer disease (AD), but high (31%) for non-AD dementias. These data raise concerns about use of the RBANS embedded effort measures in dementia evaluations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available