Home › Research › Disparities
Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature
Lippa SM.. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2017-11-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective Over the past two decades, there has been much research on measures of response bias and myriad measures have been validated in a variety of clinical and research samples. This critical review aims to guide clinicians through the use of performance validity tests (PVTs) from test selection and administration through test interpretation and feedback. Method/results Recommended cutoffs and relevant test operating characteristics are presented. Other important issues to consider during test selection, administration, interpretation, and feedback are discussed including order effects, coaching, impact on test data, and methods to combine measures and improve predictive power. When interpreting performance validity measures, neuropsychologists must use particular caution in cases of dementia, low intelligence, English as a second language/minority cultures, or low education. Conclusions PVTs provide valuable information regarding response bias and, under the right circumstances, can provide excellent evidence of response bias. Only after consideration of the entire clinical picture, including validity test performance, can concrete determinations regarding the validity of test data be made.
Key findings
- Method/results Recommended cutoffs and relevant test operating characteristics are presented.
Why it matters
This review gives guidance on using performance validity tests to detect biased or invalid test responses, and warns that results must be interpreted cautiously in people with dementia, low intelligence, limited English, minority cultural background, or low education. It concerns how cognitive test results are judged, not how Alzheimer's disease is treated, cured, or prevented.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Clinical neuropsychologist) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | The Clinical Neuropsychologist: journal h-index 128 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 5 / 7 | Cited 161 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 16.1 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 12.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 48 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Sara M. Lippa: h-index 24 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Walter Reed National Military Medical Center: institution h-index 456 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29182444) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Lippa, S. M. (2018). Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature. The Clinical neuropsychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146
Vancouver
Lippa SM. Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature. The Clinical neuropsychologist. 2018. doi:10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146. PMID: 29182444.
BibTeX
@article{lippa2018-29182444,
author = {Lippa, S. M.},
title = {{Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature}},
journal = {The Clinical neuropsychologist},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146},
pmid = {29182444},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.