A review of performance and symptom validity testing with pediatric populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing recognition and concerns of non-credible performance in pediatric populations have led clinicians to investigate the utility of performance and symptom validity tests (PVT/SVTs) among children and adolescents. Yet current research has indicated that a minority of clinicians routinely utilize a free-standing PVT in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. The current article investigates the rationale for using PVT/SVTs, and the impact that failure of such exams have on other neurocognitive tests. A review of common adult PVTs and their appropriateness for use with specific pediatric clinical populations is presented, as well as empirical evidence for evaluating embedded validity indicators. The limited literature on SVTs with youth is also reviewed and provides additional insight into symptom exaggeration. There are various reasons children would provide noncredible performance, many of which are different from adults. A review of how the clinician should handle this behavior in pediatric evaluations is provided and what patient populations may present with a higher base rate of failure. Finally, various approaches are offered on how to explain these results to children and their caregivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".