The Experts below are selected from a list of 15 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ross D. Crosby - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Performance curve classification of invalid responding on the Validity Indicator Profile.
Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. Crosby, Timothy F. WynkoopAbstract:The purpose of this article is to provide evidence for the validity of performance curve classification on the Nonverbal Subtest of the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP-NV). A four-fold classification scheme of performance on cognitive testing is proposed. This scheme combines effort and motivation to generate four response classifications: compliant, careless, irrelevant, and malingering. Data are presented across six studies from cognitive and personality testing for 737 male pretrial criminal defendants. Additionally, computer-generated VIP-NV performances were subjected to four levels of randomization to investigate VIP-NV carelessness indicators. The findings support the validity of the four-fold classification scheme and support the classification of response on the basis of motivation and effort.
-
Development and Validation of the Validity Indicator Profile
Law and Human Behavior, 2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. CrosbyAbstract:The Validity Indicator Profile (VIP; Frederick, 1997) is a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) procedure intended to identify when the results of cognitive and neuropsychological testing may be invalid because of malingering or other problematic response styles. The test consists of 100 problems that assess Nonverbal abstraction capacity and 78 word-definition problems. The VIP attempts to establish whether an individual's performance in an assessment battery should be considered representative of his or her true overall capacities (valid or invalid). Performances classified as valid are classified as “compliant” and reflect a high effort to respond correctly. Performances classified as invalid are subclassified as “careless” (low effort to respond correctly), “irrelevant” (low effort to respond incorrectly), or “malingering” (high effort to respond incorrectly). The VIP development sample included 944 nonclinical participants and 104 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. The cross-validation sample consisted of 152 nonclinical participants, 61 brain-injured adults, 49 individuals considered to be at risk for malingering, and 100 randomly generated VIP protocols. The Nonverbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 79.8%, with 73.5% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity. The verbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 75.5%, with 67.3% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity.
-
Development and Validation of the Validity
2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. CrosbyAbstract:atic response styles. The test consists of 100 problems that assess Nonverbal abstraction capacity and 78 word-definition problems. The VIP attempts to establish whether an individual's performance in an assessment battery should be considered representative of his or her true overall capacities (valid or invalid). Performances classified as valid are classified as "compliant" and reflect a high effort to respond correctly. Performances classified as invalid are subclassified as "careless" (low effort to respond correctly), "irrelevant" (low effort to respond incorrectly), or "malingering" (high effort to respond incorrectly). The VIP development sample included 944 nonclinical participants and 104 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. The crossvalidation sample consisted of 152 nonclinical participants, 61 brain-injured adults, 49 individuals considered to be at risk for malingering, and 100 randomly generated VIPprotocols. The Nonverbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 79.8%o, with 73.5% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity. The verbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 75.5%, with 67.3% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity.
Richard I. Frederick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Performance curve classification of invalid responding on the Validity Indicator Profile.
Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. Crosby, Timothy F. WynkoopAbstract:The purpose of this article is to provide evidence for the validity of performance curve classification on the Nonverbal Subtest of the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP-NV). A four-fold classification scheme of performance on cognitive testing is proposed. This scheme combines effort and motivation to generate four response classifications: compliant, careless, irrelevant, and malingering. Data are presented across six studies from cognitive and personality testing for 737 male pretrial criminal defendants. Additionally, computer-generated VIP-NV performances were subjected to four levels of randomization to investigate VIP-NV carelessness indicators. The findings support the validity of the four-fold classification scheme and support the classification of response on the basis of motivation and effort.
-
Development and Validation of the Validity Indicator Profile
Law and Human Behavior, 2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. CrosbyAbstract:The Validity Indicator Profile (VIP; Frederick, 1997) is a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) procedure intended to identify when the results of cognitive and neuropsychological testing may be invalid because of malingering or other problematic response styles. The test consists of 100 problems that assess Nonverbal abstraction capacity and 78 word-definition problems. The VIP attempts to establish whether an individual's performance in an assessment battery should be considered representative of his or her true overall capacities (valid or invalid). Performances classified as valid are classified as “compliant” and reflect a high effort to respond correctly. Performances classified as invalid are subclassified as “careless” (low effort to respond correctly), “irrelevant” (low effort to respond incorrectly), or “malingering” (high effort to respond incorrectly). The VIP development sample included 944 nonclinical participants and 104 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. The cross-validation sample consisted of 152 nonclinical participants, 61 brain-injured adults, 49 individuals considered to be at risk for malingering, and 100 randomly generated VIP protocols. The Nonverbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 79.8%, with 73.5% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity. The verbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 75.5%, with 67.3% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity.
-
Development and Validation of the Validity
2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. CrosbyAbstract:atic response styles. The test consists of 100 problems that assess Nonverbal abstraction capacity and 78 word-definition problems. The VIP attempts to establish whether an individual's performance in an assessment battery should be considered representative of his or her true overall capacities (valid or invalid). Performances classified as valid are classified as "compliant" and reflect a high effort to respond correctly. Performances classified as invalid are subclassified as "careless" (low effort to respond correctly), "irrelevant" (low effort to respond incorrectly), or "malingering" (high effort to respond incorrectly). The VIP development sample included 944 nonclinical participants and 104 adults undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. The crossvalidation sample consisted of 152 nonclinical participants, 61 brain-injured adults, 49 individuals considered to be at risk for malingering, and 100 randomly generated VIPprotocols. The Nonverbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 79.8%o, with 73.5% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity. The verbal Subtest of the VIP demonstrated an overall classification rate of 75.5%, with 67.3% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity.
Cécile Kindelberger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Variability of cognitive development in children with Down syndrome: relevance of good reasons for using the cluster procedure.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2008Co-Authors: R. Tsao, Cécile KindelbergerAbstract:Abstract The main goal of this cross-sectional study was to demonstrate that, in addition to a main change during childhood, the cognitive development of children with Down syndrome (DS) is characterized by interindividual variability in their cognitive functioning. Eighty-eight French children with DS took part in this experiment. They were divided into six chronological age groups: 6 years ( N = 9), 7 years ( N = 19), 8 years ( N = 18), 9 years ( N = 19), 10 years ( N = 14) and 11 years ( N = 9). They were assessed by means of the Differential Scales of Intellectual Efficiency. This test, composed of six independent scales, measures verbal abilities and Nonverbal reasoning abilities. Initial analyses of the verbal and Nonverbal Subtest scores indicated a main change in cognitive skills. We then used a clustering approach to identify four cognitive profiles that distinguished the children with DS independently of age and gender. The results confirm that there is a growth in the cognitive skills of DS children. They also suggest that the cognitive functioning of DS children is characterized by different individual profiles. Implications for more fine-tuned research and intervention efforts are discussed.
R. Tsao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Variability of cognitive development in children with Down syndrome: relevance of good reasons for using the cluster procedure.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2008Co-Authors: R. Tsao, Cécile KindelbergerAbstract:Abstract The main goal of this cross-sectional study was to demonstrate that, in addition to a main change during childhood, the cognitive development of children with Down syndrome (DS) is characterized by interindividual variability in their cognitive functioning. Eighty-eight French children with DS took part in this experiment. They were divided into six chronological age groups: 6 years ( N = 9), 7 years ( N = 19), 8 years ( N = 18), 9 years ( N = 19), 10 years ( N = 14) and 11 years ( N = 9). They were assessed by means of the Differential Scales of Intellectual Efficiency. This test, composed of six independent scales, measures verbal abilities and Nonverbal reasoning abilities. Initial analyses of the verbal and Nonverbal Subtest scores indicated a main change in cognitive skills. We then used a clustering approach to identify four cognitive profiles that distinguished the children with DS independently of age and gender. The results confirm that there is a growth in the cognitive skills of DS children. They also suggest that the cognitive functioning of DS children is characterized by different individual profiles. Implications for more fine-tuned research and intervention efforts are discussed.
Timothy F. Wynkoop - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Performance curve classification of invalid responding on the Validity Indicator Profile.
Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2000Co-Authors: Richard I. Frederick, Ross D. Crosby, Timothy F. WynkoopAbstract:The purpose of this article is to provide evidence for the validity of performance curve classification on the Nonverbal Subtest of the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP-NV). A four-fold classification scheme of performance on cognitive testing is proposed. This scheme combines effort and motivation to generate four response classifications: compliant, careless, irrelevant, and malingering. Data are presented across six studies from cognitive and personality testing for 737 male pretrial criminal defendants. Additionally, computer-generated VIP-NV performances were subjected to four levels of randomization to investigate VIP-NV carelessness indicators. The findings support the validity of the four-fold classification scheme and support the classification of response on the basis of motivation and effort.
