Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (Continuous and Categorical)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to examine the classification accuracy of the Erdodi Index (EI-5), a novel method for aggregating validity indicators that takes into account both the number and extent of performance validity test (PVT) failures. Archival data were collected from a mixed clinical/forensic sample of 452 adults referred for neuropsychological assessment. The classification accuracy of the EI-5 was evaluated against established free-standing PVTs. The EI-5 achieved a good combination of sensitivity (.65) and specificity (.97), correctly classifying 92% of the sample. Its classification accuracy was comparable with that of another free-standing PVT. An indeterminate range between Pass and Fail emerged as a legitimate third outcome of performance validity assessment, indicating that the underlying construct is an inherently continuous variable. Results support the use of the EI model as a practical and psychometrically sound method of aggregating multiple embedded PVTs into a single-number summary of performance validity. Combining free-standing PVTs with the EI-5 resulted in a better separation between credible and non-credible profiles, demonstrating incremental validity. Findings are consistent with recent endorsements of a three-way outcome for PVTs ( Pass, Borderline, and Fail).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".