Invited Commentary: Bayesian Inference with Multiple Tests

被引:0
作者
Paul A. Jewsbury
机构
[1] Foundational Psychometric and Statistical Research,Educational Testing Service
来源
Neuropsychology Review | 2023年 / 33卷
关键词
Validity; Multiple tests; Bayesian; Bayes; Test validation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Dr. Leonhard presents a comprehensive and insightful critique of the existing malingering research literature and its implications for neuropsychological practice. Their statistical critique primarily focuses on the crucial issue of diagnostic inference when multiple tests are involved. While Leonhard effectively addresses certain misunderstandings, there are some overlooked misconceptions within the literature and a few new confusions were introduced. In order to provide a balanced commentary, this evaluation considers both Leonhard's critiques and the malingering research literature. Furthermore, a concise introduction to Bayesian diagnostic inference, utilizing the results of multiple tests, is provided. Misunderstandings regarding Bayesian inference are clarified, and a valid approach to Bayesian inference is elucidated. The assumptions underlying the simple Bayes model are thoroughly discussed, and it is demonstrated that the chained likelihood ratios method is an inappropriate application of this model due to one reason identified by Leonhard and another reason that has not been previously recognized. Leonhard's conclusions regarding the primary dependence of incremental validity on unconditional correlations and the alleged mathematical incorrectness of the simple Bayes model are refuted. Finally, potential directions for future research and practice in this field are explored and discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:643 / 652
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Altman DG(1994)Statistics notes: Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values BMJ 309 102-916
  • [2] Bland JM(2013)False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests Brain Injury 27 909-1223
  • [3] Berthelson L(2014)Cumulative false positive rates given multiple performance validity tests: Commentary on Davis and Millis (2014) and Larrabee (2014) The Clinical Neuropsychologist 28 1212-573
  • [4] Mulchan SS(2016)Refining the use of likelihood ratios for determining non-credible effort (Abstract) Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31 573.1-254
  • [5] Odland AP(2003)Noncredible cognitive performance in the context of severe brain injury The Clinical Neuropsychologist 17 244-1264
  • [6] Miller LJ(2022)Deception is different: Negative validity test findings do not provide “evidence” for “good effort” The Clinical Neuropsychologist 36 1244-757
  • [7] Mittenberg W(1966)Mixed group validation: A method for determining the validity of diagnostic signs without using criterion groups Psychological Bulletin 66 63-718
  • [8] Bilder RM(1983)Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient Biometrics 39 753-596
  • [9] Sugar CA(2000)Mixed group validation: A method to address the limitations of criterion group validation in research on malingering detection Behavioral Sciences & the Law 18 693-180
  • [10] Hellemann GS(2019)Diagnostic test score validation with a fallible criterion Applied Psychological Measurement 43 579-679