Victoria Symptom Validity Test

by Daniel Slick, PhD, Grace Hopp, MA

& Esther Strauss, PhD, and PAR Staff

Score Report/Interpretive Guide

-Client Information-

 

Client Name: Sample Report

Complaints of Memory Dysfunction: Yes

 

ID Number: 123-45-6789-0

Possible Litigation: Yes

 

Date of Testing: 10/13/1997

Date of Injury: 01/01/1997

 

Date of Birth: 10/28/1965

Loss of Consciousness (LOC): Yes

 

Age: 31

Duration of LOC: 2 hours

 

Gender: Male

Length of Post Traumatic Amnesia: 2 days

 

Education:

Results of Neuroimaging:

 

Reported Ethnicity:

Setting:

 

Marital Status:

Previous Head Injury:

 

 

Previous Testing:

 

 

Sensory/Motor Impairments:

 

 

Other Neurological/Medical Disorders:

 

 


This report is designed to assist in the interpretation of performance on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT). The VSVT provides one measure of the level of effort expended on test-taking by clients referred for psychological or neuropsychological evaluations.

 

The VSVT and other forced-choice tests are often referred to as "symptom validity tests," rather than "malingering tests," because unusually poor performance may reflect poor effort, deliberate feigning, exaggeration of real cognitive deficits, factors independent of conscious dissimulation and external rewards, or any combination of the above. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to recognize that VSVT scores are, at best, capable of indicating that factors other than cognitive impairment may be influencing a clientís performance. Even in cases where financial or other incentives exist and where performance on the VSVT is in the questionable range, the client may be legitimately impaired, acting without conscious intent, or a combination of both.

 

The clinician using the VSVT should be knowledgeable about the research and ethical issues related to assessing symptom validity. Considerable caution and good judgment should be exercised when interpreting the results of symptom validity tests such as VSVT due to the potentially serious implications of results suggesting less than optimal effort. The clinician is strongly encouraged to employ additional measures to assess effort and motivation whenever the clientís VSVT performance raises concerns about the level of effort expended during an evaluation. More reliable and accurate conclusions about a clientís motivation and effort can best be made through the use of multiple assessment instruments and additional sources of information.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 1997 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

All rights reserved

 

 

 


VSVT Summary Scores


 

 

Binomial

Suggested

Items Correct score

Raw score

p value

interpretation

Easy Items Correct

20/24

0.9999

Valid

Difficult Items Correct

13/24

0.7294

Questionable

Total Items Correct

33/48

0.9972

Valid

 


Note. Raw scores indicate the number of items correct/maximum number of items in the category.

 

 

 

 


Between-Group Comparisons: Items Correct Scores

 

 

Comparison Groups

 

Client

 

Control

Feigning

Comp

 Non-comp

Items Correct score

(n = 1)

 

(n = 95)

(n = 43)

(n = 205)

 (n = 32)

Easy Items Correct

20

M

23.97

20.30

23.33

23.53

 

 

SD

0.18

4.35

1.96

1.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difficult Items Correct

13

M

23.44

10.95

20.17

22.63

 

 

SD

0.92

6.06

4.80

1.79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Items Correct

33

M

47.41

31.26

43.50

46.16

 

 

SD

0.92

9.05

6.08

2.59


Note. Comp = Compensation-seeking; Non-comp = Non-compensation seeking.

 

Descriptive Statistics for Response Latency Variables


 

 

Classification

 

Response Latency scores (seconds)

Valid (above chance)

Questionable (at chance)

Invalid (below chance)

Easy Items

 

 

 

M

1.67

2.84

3.40

SD

0.73

1.45

1.02

95% Confidence Interval

1.58 - 1.77

2.26 - 3.42

2.81 - 3.99

 

 

 

 

Difficult Items

 

 

 

M

2.68

5.50

4.70

SD

1.28

3.44

1.67

95% Confidence Interval

2.52 - 2.85

4.11 - 6.89

3.73 - 5.67

 


Note. Number of respondents within the three classification groups are as follows: Valid (n = 135); Questionable (n = 20); and Invalid (n = 15).

 

 

 

Between-Group Comparisons: Response Latency


 

 

 

Comparison Groups 

 

 

Response Latency scores (seconds)

Client

Control

Feigning

Comp

 Non-comp

(n = 1)

(n = 95)

(n = 43)

(n = 205)

(n = 32)

Easy Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

0.78

1.29

2.48

2.06

1.61

 

SD

0.36

0.37

1.05

1.04

0.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difficult Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

0.87

1.93

4.08

3.45

2.61

 

SD

0.47

0.51

2.12

2.02

1.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

0.82

1.61

3.28

2.76

2.11

 

SD

0.42

0.41

1.43

1.45

0.80

 

 


Note. Comp = Compensation-seeking; Non-comp = Non-compensation seeking.

 

Item Scores for Block 1


 

Response accuracy

 

 

 

 

Correct

Incorrect

Item type

Response Latency (seconds)

Item 1

X

 

Easy

 

0.88

Item 2

X

 

Easy

 

0.66

Item 3

 

X

 

Difficult

1.15

Item 4

X

 

Easy

 

0.77

Item 5

X

 

Easy

 

0.55

Item 6

X

 

 

Difficult

0.88

Item 7

X

 

 

Difficult

0.76

Item 8

X

 

Easy

 

1.04

Item 9

X

 

 

Difficult

0.66

Item 10

 

X

Easy

 

0.93

Item 11

 

X

 

Difficult

1.05

Item 12

X

 

 

Difficult

1.76

Item 13

 

X

Easy

 

1.48

Item 14

X

 

Easy

 

0.71

Item 15

X

 

 

Difficult

0.98

Item 16

 

X

 

Difficult

1.21


 

 

Score Totals for Block 1 (16 items)


Easy Items Correct = 6

 

Easy Items Response Latency = 0.88

Difficult Items Correct = 5

 

Difficult Items Response Latency = 1.06

Total Items Correct = 11

 

Total Items Response Latency = 0.97


Note. Retention interval for Block 1 was 5 seconds. 

 

 

Item Scores for Block 2


 

Response accuracy

 

 

 

 

Correct

Incorrect

Item type

Response Latency (seconds)

Item 1

 

X

Easy

 

1.48

Item 2

X

 

 

Difficult

2.04

Item 3

X

 

Easy

 

1.26

Item 4

 

X

 

Difficult

0.88

Item 5

X

 

Easy

 

0.99

Item 6

 

X

 

Difficult

0.65

Item 7

X

 

Easy

 

0.77

Item 8

X

 

 

Difficult

0.55

Item 9

X

 

Easy

 

1.04

Item 10

X

 

Easy

 

0.61

Item 11

X

 

 

Difficult

1.10

Item 12

X

 

 

Difficult

0.38

Item 13

 

X

Easy

 

0.49

Item 14

X

 

Easy

 

0.22

Item 15

 

X

 

Difficult

0.00

Item 16

 

X

 

Difficult

0.17

 


 

Score Totals for Block 2 (16 items)


Easy Items Correct = 6

 

Easy Items Response Latency = 0.86

Difficult Items Correct = 4

 

Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.72

Total Items Correct = 10

 

Total Items Response Latency = 0.79


Note. Retention interval for Block 2 was 10 seconds. 

 

 

Item Scores for Block 3


 

Response accuracy

 

 

 

 

Correct

Incorrect

Item type

Response Latency (seconds)

Item 1

X

 

 

Difficult

1.10

Item 2

X

 

 

Difficult

1.26

Item 3

X

 

Easy

 

0.66

Item 4

X

 

Easy

 

0.60

Item 5

X

 

 

Difficult

0.50

Item 6

 

X

 

Difficult

0.60

Item 7

X

 

Easy

 

0.71

Item 8

 

X

 

Difficult

1.04

Item 9

 

X

 

Difficult

1.21

Item 10

X

 

Easy

 

1.21

Item 11

X

 

Easy

 

0.55

Item 12

X

 

 

Difficult

0.60

Item 13

X

 

Easy

 

0.66

Item 14

 

X

 

Difficult

0.33

Item 15

X

 

Easy

 

0.22

Item 16

X

 

Easy

 

0.16

 


 

Score Totals for Block 3 (16 items)


Easy Items Correct = 8

 

Easy Items Response Latency = 0.60

Difficult Items Correct = 4

 

Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.83

Total Items Correct = 12

 

Total Items Response Latency = 0.71


Note. Retention interval for Block 3 was 15 seconds. 

 

 

Score Totals for Blocks 1-3 (48 items)


Easy Items Correct = 20

 

Easy Items Response Latency = 0.78

Difficult Items Correct = 13

 

Difficult Items Response Latency = 0.87

Total Items Correct = 33

 

Total Items Response Latency = 0.82


Right-Left Preference score: 0.13

(Scores < -0.6 indicate an extreme left-side preference; scores > 0.6 indicate an extreme right-side preference)