Burton, V., Puente, A.E., Vilar-López, R.

 According to the 2010 census, Hispanics are now the largest minority group within the United States
(Census Bureau, 2010)
 Hispanic can be defined in many ways, typically including language, culture, and ethnicity
 The neuropsychological literature is relatively sparse and almost no information exists (outside of our work) on testing effort of Spanish speakers

 Over the past two decades there has been a growth in the quantity of research regarding culture and psychology , less so in neuropsychology
 Much of what relates to neuropsychology is limited in cross-cultural and linguistic assessments such as test translations

 A need for a better understanding of neuropsychological tests and Hispanics exists and is increasing. (Puente & Ardila, 2000)
 Tests of effort are an important tool in neuropsychology (most popularly cited article on the subject is Bush et. al, 2005)
 Specifically, no studies have been conducted in the
United States with neuropsychological tests of effort and Spanish speakers.
 What has been done is limited to Spain (Vilar-Lopez)

 Due to the use of assessments in neuropsychology, it is vital to develop assessments that are culturally and linguistically unbiased (Testing Standards, 1999; in revision).
 Tests have been developed in the English language with the majority culture as the norm groups

 Detection of malingering in a Spanish (Spain) population using three specific malingering tests
(Vilar-López et al., 2007)
 No significant differences were found when compared to the North American samples of the test manuals
 What about individual involved in litigation and suspect of malingering?

 Use of specific malingering measures in a Spanish sample. (Vilar-López, Gómez-Río, Caracuel-Romero,
Llamas-Elvira, & Pérez-García, 2008)
 Investigated a battery of assessments including the
Rey 15-Item Test for Spanish speakers in Spain
 This study concluded that the Rey 15-Item should be used with restrictions, determined as less sensitive

 Malingering detection in a Spanish population with a known-groups design.(Vilar-López et al., 2008)
 Utilized the Dot Counting Test and the TOMM in
Spain
 It was determined that the TOMM is an acceptable sensitive tool
 The Dot Counting Test was also determined as adequate, however, less sensitive for this population

 Differential prevalence design
 Community, clinical and forensic populations
 Residing in the United States.



Participants were collected from two sources:
1. Tileston Health Clinic (a free multi-disciplinary health clinic for the poor and uninsured) of Wilmington, N.C.
2. Private neuropsychological testing practice in
Wilmington, N.C.
Demographics collected:
1. age
2. sex
3. country of origin
4. years of education
5. Years lived in the United States
6. years of education in the country of origin
7. years of education in the United States.

Control Group (CG)




N=29
Mean age= 41.61
Mean years of education=
9.50
Not involved in litigation
Capital Murder Group
(CM)
 N=28
 Mean age= 29.79
 Mean years of education= 7.71
 Involved in criminal cases: capital murder

Other Forensic Group




N=25
Mean age= 36.56
Mean years of education=
6.68
Involved in civil litigation cases: workers’ compensation, personal injury, or Social Security disability

 Rey 15-Item
 Test of Memory Malingering
 Dot Counting Test

 IRB approval
 Data collected from Tileston Health Clinic:
 Participants approached in Spanish
 Signed informed consent
 Demographics collected
 Tests administered (counterbalanced)

 Data collected from the private practice:
 Demographic information was collected
 Two out of the three SVTs required for inclusion
 Classified as Capital Murder Group or Other Forensic
Group

Descriptive statistics of the participants regarding nationality
Mexican
N=54
Age; Mean (SD)
Education;
35.94 (10.67)
Mean
7.83 (3.72)
(SD)
Gender
33/21
(males/females)
Rey; Mean (SD) 11.57 (3.80)
Dot Counting; Mean
14.68 (6.91)
(SD)
TOMM 1; Mean (SD)
43.65 (6.36)
TOMM 2; Mean (SD)
47.28 (5.12)
Other
N= 26
35.62 (11.43)
8.00 (4.75)
20/6
11.81 (3.54)
14.31 (3.79)
45.68 (6.61)
47.68 (5.78) t/  2
.126
-.171
1.962
-.249
.249
-1.201
-.287
.161
.804
.804
.234
.775
p
.900
.865

Descriptives for the capital murder, other forensic and clinical control groups
Capital
Murder
Age;
Mean(SD)
29.79 (7.75)
Education;
Mean (SD)
7.71 (4.52)
Gender
(males/females)
25/3
Other
Forensic
36.56 (10.18) 41.61 (11.11)
6.68 (3.97)
23/2
Clinical
Controls
9.50 (3.65)
7/22
F/

2
10.315
3.285
37.495
.000
p
.000
.043

ANOVAs for the capital murder, other forensic and control groups on the effort tests
Note: 1=Capital murder group; 2=Other forensic group; 3= Control group
Capital
Murder
Rey; Mean (SD)
12.80 (3.30)
Dot Counting; Mean
(SD)
TOMM 1; Mean (SD)
14.03 (4.32)
47.47 (5.24)
TOMM 2; Mean (SD)
49.33 (1.59)
Other
Forensic
7.33 (2.69)
14.44 (4.39)
38.11 (6.94)
43.56 (7.84)
Controls
12.61 (2.87)
F p Bonferroni
9.255
.000
2<(1=3)
13.81 (5.98) .565
.571
NA
45.04 (22.93) 7.202
.002
2<1
48.89 (2.22) 3.472
.037
2<1

Classification for the capital murder, other forensic and clinical control groups according to the effort tests
Capital Murder
Pass Fail
Other Forensic
Pass Fail
Controls
Pass Fail

2
Rey cutoff 6
N (%)
Rey cutoff 9
N (%)
Dot
Countin g combo
N (%)
TOMM 2 cutoff 45
N (%)
23 (95.8) 1 (4.2) 18 (85.7) 3 (14.3)
22 (91.7) 2 (8.3) 11 (52.4) 10 (47.6)
18 (75) 6 (25)
18 (90) 2 (10)
12 (60) 8 (40)
12 (66.7) 6 (33.3)
28
(96.6)
26
(89.7)
26
(92.9)
1 (3.4)
3 (10.3)
2 (7.1)
27 (93.1) 2 (6.9)
2.649
13.603
7.448
6.658
p
.266
.001
.024
.036

 Comparison of countries of origin and sex- no differences were found
 Age and education were showed statistical significance
 ANOVAs were completed with the standardized residuals to determine differences between groups on effort tests

 The Capital Murder group (CM) performed similarly to the Clinical Control group (CC) on both the Rey 15-
Item Test and the Test of Memory Malingering
 The Other Forensic group (OF) tested with the least amount of effort on R-FIT and TOMM
 The Dot Counting Test proved to show no significant differences for any of the groups

 Most interesting: the difference between the Capital
Murder group and the Other Forensic group




Design of the study
Sample used
Lack of comparison of control group for years spent within the United States.




Known-groups design
Extension of this research with larger samples within the
United States
Including other tests of effort
Investigation of the correlation/relationship between the type of litigation individuals are involved in and testing effort

 These tests appear to be sufficient in addressing effort testing in Spanish speakers
 Important first step in the understanding of the use of neuropsychological tests with Spanish speakers in the
U.S.
 The specificity of the tests for sub-populations is unknown
 Further studies, with replication and extension are needed for specificity and sensitivity to be determined
 At that point a better understanding of the value and limits of these tests will then be achieved