Victoria Symptom Validity Test Performance in Children and Adolescents with Neurological Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly more important to study, use, and promote the utility of measures that are designed to detect non-compliance with testing (i.e., poor effort, symptom non-validity, response bias) as part of neuropsychological assessments with children and adolescents. Several measures have evidence for use in pediatrics, but there is a paucity of published support for the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) in this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the performance on the VSVT in a sample of pediatric patients with known neurological disorders. The sample consisted of 100 consecutively referred children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 19 years (mean = 14.0, SD = 3.1) with various neurological diagnoses. On the VSVT total items, 95% of the sample had performance in the "valid" range, with 5% being deemed "questionable" and 0% deemed "invalid". On easy items, 97% were "valid", 2% were "questionable", and 1% was "invalid." For difficult items, 84% were "valid," 16% were "questionable," and 0% was "invalid." For those patients given two effort measures (i.e., VSVT and Test of Memory Malingering; n = 65), none was identified as having poor test-taking compliance on both measures. VSVT scores were significantly correlated with age, intelligence, processing speed, and functional ratings of daily abilities (attention, executive functioning, and adaptive functioning), but not objective performance on the measure of sustained attention, verbal memory, or visual memory. The VSVT has potential to be used in neuropsychological assessments with pediatric patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".