Examination of the Mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptom Scale and the Validity-10 Scale to detect symptom exaggeration in US military service members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical utility of two validity scales designed for use with the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) and the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C); the Mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms Scale (mBIAS) and Validity-10 scale. METHOD: Participants were 63 U.S. military service members (age: M = 31.9 years, SD = 12.5; 90.5% male) who sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) and were prospectively enrolled from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Participants were divided into two groups based on the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): (a) symptom validity test (SVT)-Fail (n = 24) and (b) SVT-Pass (n = 39). Participants were evaluated on average 19.4 months postinjury (SD = 27.6). RESULTS: Participants in the SVT-Fail group had significantly higher scores (p < .05) on the mBIAS (d = 0.85), Validity-10 (d = 1.89), NSI (d = 2.23), and PCL-C (d = 2.47), and the vast majority of the MMPI-2-RF scales (d = 0.69 to d = 2.47). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power values were calculated across the range of mBIAS and Validity-10 scores to determine the optimal cutoff to detect symptom exaggeration. For the mBIAS, a cutoff score of ≥8 was considered optimal, which resulted in low sensitivity (.17), high specificity (1.0), high positive predictive power (1.0), and moderate negative predictive power (.69). For the Validity-10 scale, a cutoff score of ≥13 was considered optimal, which resulted in moderate-high sensitivity (.63), high specificity (.97), and high positive (.93) and negative predictive power (.83). CONCLUSION: These findings provide strong support for the use of the Validity-10 as a tool to screen for symptom exaggeration when administering the NSI and PCL-C. The mBIAS, however, was not a reliable tool for this purpose and failed to identify the vast majority of people who exaggerated symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 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".