OBJECTIVE: This study examined the clinical utility of a timed Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) trial from the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R). We evaluated whether FCR accuracy and completion time (FCompT) were associated with performance on established performance validity tests (PVTs) and embedded validity indicators (EVIs) in a mixed clinical sample, and whether these indices demonstrated classification accuracy under liberal and conservative validity definitions. METHOD: Eighty-five adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation completed the HVLT-R, including an FCR component. Spearman correlations examined associations among variables and standalone PVTs. Receiver operating characteristic analyses evaluated discrimination of invalid performance on ≥1 PVTs (liberal) or ≥2 PVTs (conservative). RESULTS: Lower FCR accuracy and longer FCompT were associated with poor performance on established PVTs. FCR accuracy showed fair discrimination under the liberal criterion (AUC = .70) and excellent discrimination under the conservative criterion (AUC = .92). FCompT showed fair discrimination for liberal criterion (AUC = .74) and good discrimination for conservative criterion (AUC = .89). Estimates were based on a small subset of invalid cases. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence of convergent validity and discriminative utility for FCR indices. Larger studies with higher rates of invalid performance are needed to establish stable classification parameters.
Kristinsson et al. (Wed,) studied this question.