Objective:Performance validity tests (PVTs) are included in neuropsychological testing to ensure examinees are performing to the best of their abilities. There are two types of PVTs: embedded and free standing. Embedded PVTs are tests that are derived from standard neuropsychological tests of various cognitive domains. Freestanding PVTs are tests that are designed with the intention of being a PVT. Research studies show that undergraduate samples do not always performed to the best of their abilities. The purpose of this study was to cross-validate previous research on the topic of performance validity in a college sample. It was predicted that the non-credible group would demonstrate higher failure rates on embedded PVTs compared to the credible group.Participants and Methods:The sample consisted of 198 neurologically and psychologically healthy undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.69 (SD = 2.11). Participants were broken into two groups: non-credible (i.e., participants that failed two or more PVTs) and credible (i.e., participants that did not failed two or more PVTs). The Rey-Osterrith copy test, Comalli Stroop part A (CSA), B (CSB), and C (CSC), Trail Making Test part A and B, Symbol Digit Modalities Test written (SDMT-W) and oral (SDMT-O) parts, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) letter fluency, and Finger Tapping Test were used to evaluate failure rates in our sample. PVT cutoff scores were use from previously validated in the literature. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate failure rates between the groups.Results:Chi-square analysis revealed significant failure rate differences between groups on several PVTs. Results revealed that 15% of the non-credible group failed the CSA compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=14.77, p=.000. Meanwhile, 26% of the non-credible group failed the CSB compared to 2% of the credible group, X2=24.72, p=.000. Furthermore, results showed that 11% of the non-credible group failed the CSC compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=13.05, p=.000.Next, 48% of the non-credible group failed the Trail Making Test part A compared to 8% of the credible group, X2=31.61, p=.000. We also found that 15% of the non-credible group failed the SDMT-W part compared to 1% of the credible group,X2=19.18, p=.000. Meanwhile, on the SDMT-O part 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 1% of the credible group, X2=25.52, p =.000. On the COWAT letter fluency task 74% of the non-credible group failed compared to 19% of the credible group, X2=36.90, p=.000. Finally, results revealed on the Finger Tapping Test 19% of the non-credible group failed compared to 3% of the credible group, X2=10.01, p=.002.Conclusions:As expected, the non-credible participants demonstrated significantly higher PVT failure rates compared to credible participants. A possible explanation driving higher failure rates in our sample can be due to cultural variables (e.g., bilingualism). It was suggested by researchers that linguistic factors may be impacting higher PVT failure rates and developing a false-positive error. Future research using undergraduate samples need to identify which PVT’s are being impacted by linguist factors.

中文翻译：

---

86 嵌入式PVT测试可信与不可信团体之间的检验

目的：神经心理学测试中包含表现效度测试（PVT），以确保考生发挥出最佳能力。PVT 有两种类型：嵌入式和独立式。嵌入式 PVT 是源自各种认知领域的标准神经心理学测试的测试。独立式 PVT 是旨在成为 PVT 的测试。研究表明，本科生样本并不总是发挥出他们的最佳能力。本研究的目的是交叉验证以前关于大学样本中表现有效性主题的研究。据预测，与可信组相比，不可信组在嵌入式 PVT 上的失败率更高。 参与者和方法：样本由 198 名神经和心理健康的本科生组成，平均年龄为 19.69 岁（SD = 2.11）。参与者被分为两组：不可信（即，未通过两次或更多 PVT 的参与者）和可信（即，未通过两次或更多 PVT 的参与者）。Rey-Osterrith 抄写测试、Comalli Stroop A 部分 (CSA)、B (CSB) 和 C (CSC)、轨迹制作测试 A 和 B 部分、符号数字模态笔试 (SDMT-W) 和口试 (SDMT-O) ）部分、受控口语联想测试（COWAT）字母流利度和手指敲击测试用于评估我们样本中的失败率。PVT 截止分数使用先前在文献中验证的分数。卡方分析用于评估各组之间的失败率。结果：卡方分析显示，在几个 PVT 上，各组之间的失败率存在显着差异。结果显示，15% 的不可信组未通过 CSA，而可信组的这一比例为 1%，X2=14.77，p=.000。同时，不可信组中有 26% 的人未能通过 CSB，而可信组的这一比例为 2%，X2=24.72，p=.000。此外，结果显示，11% 的不可信组未通过 CSC，而可信组的这一比例为 1%，X2=13.05，p=.000。接下来，48% 的不可信组未通过 Trail Making Test 部分A 与可信组的 8% 相比，X2=31.61，p=.000。我们还发现，15% 的不可信组未通过 SDMT-W 部分，而可信组的这一比例为 1%，X2=19.18，p=.000。同时，在 SDMT-O 部分，不可信组的 19% 失败，而可信组的失败率为 1%，X2=25.52，p =.000。在 COWAT 字母流利度任务中，74% 的不可信组未通过，而可信组的这一比例为 19%，X2=36.90，p=.000。最后，手指敲击测试结果显示，不可信组的 19% 失败，而可信组的失败率为 3%，X2=10.01，p=.002。结论：正如预期的那样，不可信的参与者表现出显着更高的 PVT与可信参与者相比的失败率。在我们的样本中导致较高失败率的一个可能的解释可能是文化变量（例如双语）。研究人员认为，语言因素可能会影响较高的 PVT 失败率并产生假阳性错误。未来使用本科生样本的研究需要确定哪些 PVT 受到语言因素的影响。