Elevations on select Conners’ CPT-II scales indicate noncredible responding in adults with traumatic brain injury
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevations on certain Conners' CPT-II scales are known to be associated with invalid responding. However, scales and cutoffs vary across studies. In addition, the methodology behind developing performance validity tests (PVTs) has been challenged for mistaking true impairment for noncredible presentation. Using ability-based tests as a PVT makes clinicians especially vulnerable to this criticism. The present study examined the ability of CPT-II to dissociate effort from impairment in 47 adults clinically referred for neuropsychological assessment. CPT-II scales previously identified as PVTs (Omissions, Commissions, Hit Reaction Time SE, Variability, and Perseverations) produced classification accuracies hovering around .50 sensitivity at .90 specificity. The subsample that failed these PVTs performed within normal range on other tests of working memory, processing speed, visual attention, and executive function. Results suggest that the select CPT-II based PVTs are sensitive to invalid responding, and are associated with depression and anxiety, but are unrelated to cognitive functioning.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it