Effort test performance in a NHS acquired brain injury sample
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Effort test failure and psychological functioning in a UK NHS acquired brain injury population.
IRAS ID
216551
Contact name
Jessica Hooker
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Canterbury Christ Church University
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 6 months, 16 days
Research summary
Neuropsychological assessments are not valid if the examinee does not try hard (exert maximum effort) on the component tests. Little research exists looking at the issue of effort in non-litigating clinical populations. Clinical observation alone has been shown to be an unreliable method of discriminating which examinees are exerting adequate effort in assessments. As such, measures which are sensitive to distortions in motivation (‘effort tests’) should be incorporated into assessments to inform clinical judgements of performance validity. The aim of the present study is to investigate the base rate (prevalence) of failure on two or more effort tests in a UK NHS acquired brain injury sample. A secondary aim is to explore if there are differences between individuals who pass versus individuals who fail effort testing in terms of their responses on tests of psychological functioning and personality. Establishing this finding in an NHS sample would further support the relevance of routine effort testing in UK clinical settings as a means of capturing a non-neurological dimension of performance.
The study will be conducted at St George’s Hospital in London. Anonymised archival neuropsychological test battery data will be accessed from 2009 to present. All assessments were carried out as part of routine patient care, and the researcher will not have access to patient-identifiable information at any point. The tests are standardised in this population and widely used in clinical practice. The researcher would be analysing the means of scores, so no individual patient’s data would be included in the analysis.
REC name
London - Dulwich Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/2092
Date of REC Opinion
17 Nov 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion