Compliance on neuropsychological performance validity testing in patients with borderline personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complaints of cognitive dysfunction are common in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), and they are often accompanied by deficits on neuropsychological testing. Prior studies of BPD, however, did not evaluate compliance on neuropsychological performance validity testing, which could partially account for cognitive deficits observed in patients. The aims of the current study were to evaluate the frequency at which patients with BPD show less than adequate compliance on performance validity testing, and whether patients showing less compliance perform lower on standardized neuropsychological measures. Fifty outpatients with BPD completed the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, a 2-alternative, forced-choice recognition test as part of a larger neuropsychological test battery for research on cognitive functioning in BPD. As a group, patients with BPD made more errors and had longer response latencies on seemingly difficult items as compared to healthy individuals. Based on established guidelines for interpretation of performances on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, 2% of the sample was classified as probably not compliant, 10% questionably compliant, and 88% compliant. Patients with questionably or probably not compliant performances had lower estimated premorbid intellectual functioning and displayed poorer response control on neuropsychological testing than compliant patients. These findings highlight the value of incorporating performance validity testing in neuropsychological studies of patients with BPD and suggest that prior research on the disorder should be interpreted with caution because the results may not be based on valid performances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".