Does neuropsychological intraindividual variability index cognitive dysfunction, an invalid presentation, or both? Preliminary findings from a mixed clinical older adult Veteran sample
Abstract: Introduction: Intraindividual variability across a battery of neuropsychological tests (IIV-dispersion) can reflect normal variation in scores or arise from cognitive impairment. An alternate interpretation is IIV-dispersion reflects reduced engagement/invalid test data, although extant research addressing this interpretation is significantly limited. Method: We used a sample of 97 older adult (mean age: 69.92), predominantly White (57%) or Black/African American (34%), and predominantly cis-gender male (87%) veterans. Examinees completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, including measures of reduced engagement/invalid test data (a symptom validity test [SVT], multiple performance validity tests [PVTs]), as part of a clinical evaluation. IIV-dispersion was indexed using the coefficient of variance (CoV). We tested 1) the relationships of raw scores and 'failures' on SVT/PVTs with IIV-dispersion, 2) the relationship between IIV-dispersion and validity/neurocognitive disorder status, and 3) whether IIV-dispersion discriminated the validity/neurocognitive disorder groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: IIV-dispersion was significantly and independently associated with a selection of PVTs, with small to very large effect sizes. Participants with invalid profiles and cognitively impaired participants with valid profiles exhibited medium to large (d = .55–1.09) elevations in IIV-dispersion compared to cognitively unimpaired participants with valid profiles. A non-significant but small to medium (d = .35–.60) elevation in IIV-dispersion was observed for participants with invalid profiles compared to those with a neurocognitive disorder. IIV-dispersion was largely accurate at differentiating participants without a neurocognitive disorder from invalid participants and those with a neurocognitive disorder (areas under the Curve [AUCs]=.69–.83), while accuracy was low for differentiating invalid participants from those with a neurocognitive disorder (AUCs=.58–.65). Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest IIV-dispersion may be sensitive to both neurocognitive disorders and compromised engagement. Clinicians and researchers should exercise due diligence and consider test validity (e.g. PVTs, behavioral signs of engagement) as an alternate explanation prior to interpretation of intraindividual variability as an indicator of cognitive impairment.