Rey-Osterrieth complex figure normative data for the psychiatric population.

Objective: Appropriate normative data are crucial for competent neuropsychological assessment. Although individuals with psychiatric illness often perform more poorly than healthy adults on neuropsychological testing, data that reflect the psychiatric population are often lacking. We present a normative dataset and calculation tools for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) derived from the psychiatric inpatient population. Method: A sample of 301 psychiatric inpatients completed the RCFT and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) between 1999 and 2018. Participants were 59.5% male, 82.1% Caucasian, 13.3% black, and 4.6% identified as another racial demographic, largely consistent with recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2018) data for inpatients in U.S. psychiatric facilities. Scores for RCFT Copy, Short-Delay Free Recall, Long-Delay Free Recall, Total Recognition, and Percent Retained were modeled via multiple regression with age and education as predictors. Base rates were computed for subscores comprising Total Recognition to aid clinical decision making. Results: Age and education served as significant individual predictors for all models except one model predicting percent retained across delay that included only age. Regression equations and regression standard errors were used to produce a score calculator using a commonly available spreadsheet software package. Healthy adult norms under-estimated performance in our sample, underscoring the importance of these normative data. Conclusions: These normative data for the RCFT represent a large cohort of psychiatric inpatients. For clinical practice and research, both the data and the tools provided are likely to be of particular usefulness among individuals with serious mental illness.

Cognitive functioning and adjudicative competence: defendants referred for neuropsychological evaluation in a psychiatric inpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE: A paucity of peer-reviewed research exists regarding the relation between cognitive functioning and adjudicative competence, despite increasing awareness of cognitive deficits associated with serious mental illness. This retrospective study sought to add to and expand upon existing research by considering performance validity and court determinations of competence, when available. METHOD: We compared demographic and cognitive variables of a group of defendants with presumed valid testing admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility for evaluation of adjudicative competence and referred for neuropsychological evaluation (n = 45) and compared individuals determined by the evaluator and/or the court to be competent (n = 30) and incompetent (n = 15). RESULTS: Defendants who were incompetent were more likely to be diagnosed with a cognitive disorder, with a medium effect size. There was a difference in tests of immediate and delayed memory as measured by the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), with medium to large effects, and high delayed memory scores were helpful in ruling out incompetence (Negative predictive power = 85.71%). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide support for the relationship between cognitive functioning and trial competence, particularly at high and low levels of performance.

Clinical decision making in response to performance validity test failure in a psychiatric setting.

This study examined the clinical utility of a performance validity test (PVT) for screening consecutive referrals (N = 436) to a neuropsychology service at a state psychiatric hospital treating both civilly committed and forensic patients. We created a contingency table with Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) pass/fail (355/81) and secondary gain present/absent (181/255) to examine pass rates associated with patient demographic, clinical and forensic status characteristics. Of the 81 failed PVTs, 48 had secondary gain defined as active criminal legal charges; 33 failed PVTs with no secondary gain. These individuals tended to be older, female, Caucasian, and civilly committed compared with the group with secondary gain who failed. From estimations of TOMM False Positive Rate and True Positive Rate we estimated base rates of neurocognitive malingering for our clinical population using the Test Validation Summary (TVS; Frederick & Bowden, 2009 ). Although PVT failure is clearly more common in a group with secondary gain (31%), there were a number of false positives (11%). Clinical ratings of patients without gain who failed suggested cognitive deficits, behavioral issues, and inattention. Low scores on PVTs in the absence of secondary gain provide useful information on test engagement and can inform clinical decisions about testing.