Books.google.com.tr - Regardless of your specialty - physician, psychologist, nurse, rehabilitation specialist, or attorney -post-traumatic stress disorder cases and brain injury cases are arguably the most difficult to understand, treat, and evaluate. All of the tools you need are in the new Neuropsychology for Health Care. Neuropsychology for Health Care Professionals and Attorneys, Second Edition.

1. Auditory Consonant Trigrams Test

Abstract The Auditory Consonant Trigrams (ACT) test was developed to evaluate immediate memory in the absence of rehearsal. There are few psychometric studies of the measure and a lack of normative data using samples from the United States or Veterans. ACT data were examined for 184 participants who passed the Word Memory Test, denied a history of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), and consented for research purposes only. Reliability and construct validity were examined and normative data developed using a healthy subsample. Cronbach’s α for the ACT total score was 0.79. Regression analyses suggested that years of education, estimated premorbid IQ, psychomotor speed, working memory, and impulsivity had the strongest relationships with performance on the ACT.

Performance was unrelated to posttraumatic stress disorder and remote mild TBI, but the presence of major depressive disorder was associated with lower total scores. These results demonstrate the ACT has adequate psychometric properties. , Auditory Consonant Trigrams: A Psychometric Update The Auditory Consonant Trigrams (ACT) test is an adaptation of the Brown–Peterson technique, which was originally developed as a method for studying memory decay over a brief period of time, referred to as immediate memory. By using a distractor task following presentation of a stimulus, suggested that rehearsal is prevented and the retention of information could be measured. A year later, demonstrated that a brief period of rehearsal prior to the distractor task significantly improved performance on the task, suggesting that immediate memory performance could not be fully explained by decay of a stimulus trace over time.

Since its inception, theories about the exact cognitive processes measured by the ACT have evolved, but no clear consensus has been reached. Several versions of the Brown–Peterson technique have been studied, with the Stuss version (; ) one of the most prominent in clinical use. Stuss and colleagues standardized the task to use three consonants as stimulus items, use of an oral serial threes distractor task, and five trials across 9-, 18-, and 36-s intervals.

In the initial analysis, 60 Canadian subjects aged 16–69 were examined, with means and standard deviations provided either across gender and education groupings or across age groupings. Found no evidence of age or education effects on ACT performance in that study. However, subjects were tested at two visits 1 week apart using alternate forms, and a significant practice effect was noted.

A year later, a second paper was published extending the norms by presenting data on 90 subjects in three age groups, again tested at two time points 1 week apart. The 0-s trial was not administered as part of the protocol in either of those studies, but was added to administration (but not scoring) in a third study by the group examining sensitivity of the test in patients with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

This was the only study of the three to evaluate a total score. Since the Stuss version of ACT was published, few studies have evaluated the measure psychometrically.

A study by found no differences in performance due to age in healthy individuals between 50 and 79 years old using a version of the ACT with 3-, 9-, and 18-s intervals. Found test–retest reliabilities of a modified version of the task to be adequate: r =.63 in younger individuals (mean age = 20.83 years) and r =.71 in older individuals (mean age = 70.14).

Most notably, a study of the ACT using a Turkish version reported a Cronbach's α of 0.85, though it is not reported which items were included in that calculation (i.e., if the 0-s trial was included). This is the only reliability estimate listed in the Compendium. Additionally, the Turkish sample performed significantly lower than Stuss' Canadian sample across intervals and education levels on all but one group (the greater than high school education performance on the 18-s trials). Although every attempt was made to create a Turkish version equivalent to the English version, the authors noted that the English letters W, X, and Q do not exist in the Turkish language, and application of the study's normative and psychometric data might not translate to the English version. To date, there have been no normative data reported on U.S. Subjects, and no studies with Veterans.

Validity studies of the ACT have been equivocal. Two exploratory factor analyses (EFA) evaluated the construct validity of the ACT. Using a version of the ACT composed of 3-, 9-, and 18-s intervals, conducted an EFA on 250 clinical patients and controls (mean age: 55.50) using a wide array of neuropsychological tests, including the ACT, to evaluate the relationships among several tests purported to evaluate prefrontal lobe function. Three factors were found: a cognitive flexibility factor, a speeded processing factor, and a basic/divided attention and short-term memory factor.

Of note, all three factors loaded onto a higher-order frontal factor, and Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS) scores did not load onto any factor. ACT variables loaded on a factor including Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) VIQ index score, PIQ index score, Digit Span scaled score, Digit-Symbol-scaled score, as well as percent retention on the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test. The results suggest that the ACT might be heavily influenced by general education, due to the relationship with WAIS-R IQ scores, and even though the ACT and Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test retention loaded onto the same factor, WMS scores did not load onto that factor, contradictory to the historic notion of a heavy memory component to the ACT performance. In contrast, an EFA by used a modified version of the ACT to evaluate a sample of 200 participants aged 18–88. The EFA resulted in two factors: Factor 1 included WAIS-III processing speed subtests and WMS-III verbal memory variables, and Factor 2 included the ACT variable and WAIS-III working memory subtests. The ACT variable used in this study was total number of stimuli for all trials, which involved a 20-s serial threes distractor task, and the participants wrote the answers down as opposed to saying them out loud.

Collectively, these studies do not reach consensus regarding construct validity of the ACT, with attention, processing speed, intelligence, memory, and working memory all showing some relationship to the measure. A notable limitation to these studies is the varying forms of the ACT used, which limits the generalizability to the Stuss version if used clinically. Finally, the ACT has been shown to be sensitive to a number of neurological populations, which might render the test highly useful in the clinical setting. A study of adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) found moderate to large effect sizes for differences between subjects with ADHD ( n = 48) and controls ( n = 48) on all ACT variables. A study on cognitive performance in 158 Turkish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) found significant differences on performance on ACT between the relapsing-remitting MS and the secondary progressive MS groups. Additionally, the study found a high correlation between ACT total scores (which included the 0-s trial) and Paced Auditory Serial Attention Test total scores ( r =.83). A study on 47 manganese-exposed welders found 47.7%–63.6% scored in the impaired range on the 3-, 9-, and 18-s trials of the Boone version of the ACT.

The ACT was also found to be sensitive to TBI for recent (acute stage) mild TBI (mTBI) as well as a “More Severe-Chronic” TBI group, though the sample sizes were small (, p. More recently, a study on patients with severe TBI found a moderate effect size (0.45) difference between the 12 TBI patients and 18 controls on the ACT total score of 3-, 9-, and 18-s delay trials.

Although there is variability regarding administration of the ACT in these studies, the results suggest that the ACT is sensitive to a variety of neurological conditions and cerebral insult; thus, inclusion into neuropsychological batteries and screenings for neurological disorders appears warranted. A survey of neuropsychologists listed the ACT among the top 40 tests of attention used by neuropsychologists, further stressing the need for solid normative data and an updated psychometric evaluation of the test. The purpose of this study is to provide psychometric data on the ACT including reliability estimates, analysis of construct validity, and means/standard deviations for use in calculating z-scores for normative purposes. Method The prospective studies from which these data were drawn were reviewed and approved by the affiliated Institutional Review Board. The welfare and privacy of human subjects was protected and maintained.

Voluntary verbal and written informed consent was obtained prior to initiation of any study activities. Statistical analyses were completed using SPSS 21 and GPower 3.1. For all analyses, α was set a priori at the 0.05 level; standardized β are reported for regression results. All statistical assumptions were met for the analyses completed, and an a priori power analysis was completed for the regression model. Raw scores were used for all cognitive measures except Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), which was converted to age-based standard scores ( M = 100, SD = 15).

Participants Participants for the current study were pulled from a larger database of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) postdeployment Veterans participating in a multisite study of postdeployment mental health and cognitive functioning. Inclusion criteria for the larger study included military service since January 10, 2001. Exclusion criteria included combat exposure prior to 1985, completion of a neuropsychological evaluation in the prior 6 months, acute psychosis, current substance abuse or dependence (per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV DSM-IV; ), diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to predeployment nonmilitary trauma, and history of moderate to severe TBI prior to or since deployment. Test results were kept separate from the participants' clinical records except in cases where dual consent was provided. For the current study, data from a single site were analyzed ( n = 250). Those who were missing ACT data ( n = 7), were dually consented for clinical purposes ( n = 10), reported a history of moderate to severe TBI during deployment ( n = 11), or failed the performance validity measure ( n = 38) were additionally excluded to eliminate the possibility of secondary gain issues, frank neurological impairment, or deficient performance validity. The remaining participants ( n = 184) were included in the current analyses.

For those endorsing any history of mTBI at any point in the lifespan, the date of most recent injury was compared with the date tested. All injuries were remote ( n = 57; years since most recent mTBI: range = 1–42, M = 8.68, SD = 10.25, median = 5, mode = 2).

Tests were administered by a master's or doctorate level clinician with training in neuropsychology and supervised by a board certified neuropsychologist. Tests were administered in a fixed order and in a standardized manner in accordance with the tests' manuals. Data were collected between June 2006 and March 2015. Measures ACT is a version of the Brown–Peterson Technique.

The version used in this study involved presenting three consonants sometimes followed by a number (except in the 0-s trials). The respondent then counted backwards by threes from the provided number, and after an interval of 0, 9, 18, or 36 s, verbally reported the three consonants presented at the initiation of the trial. There are a total of 20 trials, with five items for each interval. A summary score for each interval is derived, and a total score created from all but the 0-s trials. Higher scores on all variables reflect better performance. Cognitive measures for construct validity were selected from the available battery based on cognitive domains previously reported to be related to ACT performance (processing speed, attention, verbal learning, and executive functioning).

Cognitive domains measured by tests were defined using and test manuals for classification (though it is recognized that other ability descriptors may be used for tests). Four variables were selected from each domain based on common use, variety of sub-ability measured, and psychometric properties. Table lists all cognitive tests, categorizations of the tests, reliability estimates from established research, and correlations to the ACT total score. Descriptive The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID; ) was used for the evaluation of psychiatric diagnoses. Variable of interest included meeting full DSM-IV criteria for current PTSD and major depressive disorder (MDD).

Additionally, most included participants ( n = 131, 71.2%) completed a semi-structured interview for lifetime TBI history based on the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine criteria. The interview was used to create a dichotomous (yes/no) mTBI during deployment variable. For those without the interview data, a self-report measure of TBI exposure was completed (based on ) and used to create the mTBI variable. The Green Word Memory Test (WMT; ) is a performance validity test based on forced-choice recognition of 16 word pairs. There are three validity subtests to the WMT: Immediate Recall, Delayed Recall, and Consistency. The Multiple Choice subtest was also administered, but not considered here. The Paired Associates, Free Recall, and Long Delayed Free Recall subtests were not administered as part of the standardized battery.

Participants scoring 82.5% or less on one or more of the three validity subtests were considered to have failed that measure and were excluded from analyses. The WTAR (average internal consistency r =.93) is a test reflecting educational exposure based on the respondent's ability to read phonemically irregular words. The WTAR correlated with WAIS-III Full Scale IQ scores ( r =.73; ).

Age-corrected standard scores were used as an estimate of general intellectual ability. Processing speed The WAIS-III is a clinician-administered battery of intellectual ability. Three subtests were used for this study.

Digit-Symbol-Coding is a timed performance test of processing speed, visual scanning, and motor control. Symbol Search is a test of speed of visual search and processing. Higher scores on both reflect better performance.

The Trail Making Test (TMT; ) consists of two subtests. Part A involves connecting a series of 25 numbered circles in order as fast as possible, and evaluates psychomotor speed. Lower (faster) scores relate to better performance.

The Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II Version 5 (CPT-II; ) is a computer-administered test of simple attention, sustained attention, reaction time, and impulsivity. The respondent must quickly hit the space bar when a letter flashes on the screen but inhibit hitting the space bar if the letter is an X. Hit Reaction Time is a measure of simple reaction time based on the average latency of stimulus presentation to pressing the space bar, with lower scores related to better performance. Attention CPT-II Omissions errors occur when the space bar is not pressed when it should have been following presentation of a target stimulus, which is considered a measure of inattention. TMT Part B involves connecting 25 circles with both numbers and letters in order and alternating, thus measuring set shifting or divided attention. Scores represent time to complete each task, with lower (faster) scores indicating better performance. The Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test is a measure of auditory working memory in which the respondent must track a list of single-digit numbers and add each number to the number immediately preceding.

There are four trials, with each subsequent trial read at a faster rate. A total score was calculated by summing total correct across the first two trials (read at 2.4- and 2.0-s intervals). Per test instructions, the test is to be discontinued if the first two trials are not tolerated; thus, only those trials were used for this study.

Higher scores represent better performance. WAIS-III Letter–Number Sequencing (LNS; ) is a verbal, alphanumeric measure of working memory and sequencing.

Higher scores on all three measures indicate better performance. Verbal learning The California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II, Standard Form; ) is a list learning and memory test composed of five learning trials of a list of 16 words from four semantic categories, an interference list trial, four recall trials, and two recognition trials. Trial 1 measures single-trial learning and auditory attention span, and 1–5 Total is the sum of correct responses across all five learning trials, used as a measure of global learning. Trial B is a new list administered following the last trial of the original list, reflecting attention span with a proactive interference component.

Total Intrusions is number of non-list words given as responses over all learning and memory trials. Higher scores on the CVLT-II variables represent better performance, except for the total intrusions measure.

Executive functioning The Color/Word Inhibition trial from the Stroop Color and Word Test, Adult Version (Stroop; ) measures processing speed, inhibitory abilities, and resistance to interference. The subject must refrain from reading a colored word and instead identify the contrasting ink color of the text. Total number correct in 45 s is the outcome, with higher scores reflecting better performance. CPT-II Commissions (COM) are number of responses to non-target Xs, which is considered a measure of impulsivity.

Higher scores reflect poorer performance. The Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT; ) is a measure of phonemic verbal fluency. Participants name as many words as possible in 60 s for the three letters (C, F, and L). The total number correct across the three trials was used, with higher scores reflecting better performance. The BDS-II is a nine-item executive functioning measure that primarily evaluates dynamic motor control, but also includes an auditory version of the TMT B task and an insight item. The total score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores reflecting better performance.

Results Sample Characteristics and Reliability Table presents demographic data for the total included sample. Means and standard deviations for ACT scores and reliabilities (Cronbach's α) are listed in Table. For general normative purposes, a subsample of healthy control participants was identified who passed the WMT, denied a history of TBI of any severity across the lifetime, and did not meet criteria for any DSM-IV diagnosis at the time of participation. Descriptive statistics of this subsample are presented in a separate column in Table. ACT data for this healthy group are presented in Table for use in calculating z scores.

Using the total included sample, only the ACT total score achieved an acceptable reliability (α = 0.79), and will thus be the focus of the rest of these results. Item level data are listed in Table.

There is considerable variability for all items other than 0 s trials, though some items are observably easier than others. Correlations were run between total scores for all delay groups and the overall total, as shown in Table. The significant correlations among the 9, 18, and 36 s scores further support collapsing across delays into a total score.

The 0 s total was not correlated with any other subscale, suggesting that those trials measure a different construct. Considering the issues common to the post-deployed Veteran cohort, dichotomous groups were created based on presence versus absence of deployment mTBI, and current MDD and PTSD. Independent t-tests were run between the groups for each variable. ACT total scores were significantly different between those with and without current MDD ( t = −2.04, p =.043, d = 0.43). ACT scores were not significantly different between those with and without a reported history of mTBI during deployment ( t = 0.54, ns, d = 0.09) nor with and without current PTSD diagnosis ( t = −1.85, ns, d = 0.30). Additionally, the ACT total score was not significantly correlated with number of mTBIs sustained during deployment ( r = −.06, ns). Effects of Education and Intellectual Ability on ACT Performance Bivariate correlations and t-tests were used to examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and ACT total scores.

Age ( r =.03, ns), sex ( t = 0.09, ns, d = 0.02), and minority status ( t = −1.19, ns, d = 0.20) were not significantly related to ACT total scores. However, both years of education ( r =.25, p 115; n = 35, M = 38.14, SD = 4.76). An ANOVA using ACT total score across these groups was significant, F (2, 181) = 23.77, p. Variable β t p VIF Age −0.03 −0.40.727 1.50 Sex −0.13 −1.81.072 1.27 Minority −0.03 −0.39.699 1.42 Education 0.17 2.27.025 1.40 WTAR 0.27 3.17.002 1.81 WAIS-III DSC 0.07 0.69.489 2.25 WAIS-III SS −0.10 −1.01.313 2.39 WAIS-III LNS 0.14 1.68.095 1.61 TMT A −0.20 −2.50.013 1.62 TMT B 0.02 0.24.809 1.97 CPT-II COM −0.13 −1.79.075 1.27 BDS-II 0.02 0.26.795 1.61 CVLT-II 1 0.04 0.40.687 2.10 CVLT-II 1 –5 0.08 0.83.410 2.41 PASAT 0.02 0.26.794 1.97 Stroop −0.02 −0.21.834 1.54 COWAT 0.05 0.71.479 1.44.

Variable β t p VIF Age −0.03 −0.40.727 1.50 Sex −0.13 −1.81.072 1.27 Minority −0.03 −0.39.699 1.42 Education 0.17 2.27.025 1.40 WTAR 0.27 3.17.002 1.81 WAIS-III DSC 0.07 0.69.489 2.25 WAIS-III SS −0.10 −1.01.313 2.39 WAIS-III LNS 0.14 1.68.095 1.61 TMT A −0.20 −2.50.013 1.62 TMT B 0.02 0.24.809 1.97 CPT-II COM −0.13 −1.79.075 1.27 BDS-II 0.02 0.26.795 1.61 CVLT-II 1 0.04 0.40.687 2.10 CVLT-II 1 –5 0.08 0.83.410 2.41 PASAT 0.02 0.26.794 1.97 Stroop −0.02 −0.21.834 1.54 COWAT 0.05 0.71.479 1.44. Note: n = 184.

Β are standardized β. Bold font highlights significant β. WTAR = Wechsler Test of Adult Reading standard score; WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales; DSC = Digit-Symbol Coding; LNS = Letter–Number Sequencing; TMT = Trail Making Test; CPT-II = Connors' Continuous Performance Test II; COM = Commission Errors; BDS-II = Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale –II; CVLT = California Verbal Learning Test; 1 = Trial 1; 1–5 = Trials 1–5; PASAT = Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; COWAT = Controlled Oral Word Association Test. Post Hoc Exploratory Analyses The current sample performed near perfect on the 0-s trial, which resulted in poor reliability for the 0-s trial. Also, the sum of the 0-s scores was not significantly correlated with any other summed ACT score, again likely due to a lack of variance. Qualitatively, three participants (2%) committed errors on the trials, and all of the errors involved stating a like-sounding consonant to the stimulus (e.g., substituting T for P), suggesting that these errors might be related to hearing issues or poor sound discrimination.

Because of the small number who did not score perfect on the 0-s trial and the tendency for errors to resemble auditory misperceptions, statistical evaluation was not conducted. A follow-up backward regression was used to further examine significantly related variables and ACT total score. By eliminating nonsignificant variables from subsequent models, unique variance can be further explored while eliminating the noise of shared variance. The final model was significant, F (5, 170) = 16.56, p 11 months since most recent injury, M = 8.68 years) in the presence of adequate performance validity is not related to significantly poorer performance on the ACT. Additionally, the presence of PTSD was not related to ACT total scores. However, ACT total scores were significantly lower for those with DSM-IV current MDD compared with those without MDD.

Also reported that individuals with MDD performed significantly worse on the ACT compared with healthy controls, though performance validity was not assessed in that study. The relationship between MDD and ACT performance might be explained by decreased processing speed in those with MDD, considering our finding that the ACT was significantly related to a measure of psychomotor speed.

A meta-analysis on cognitive functioning and MDD found that individuals with MDD performed significantly slower on tests of psychomotor speed than those without ( d = 0.33), with depression symptom severity moderating that relationship. One possible explanation might be the motor slowing hypothesis, which suggests motor slowing in depression irrespective of higher cognitive impairment; however, Snyder found that impaired executive functions were not fully explained by motor slowing. Thus, the lower ACT total scores in those with current MDD in our sample might be related to an interaction of motor slowing and impaired executive functioning, but such relationships would need further evaluation in future studies. The ACT purports to measure memory decay, or rate at which perceived information degrades, and is conceptualized as related to frontal lobe functioning (e.g., ). In the present study, ACT performance was not related to tests of simple reaction time, basic attention, single-trial learning, learning after an interference task, or verbal memory intrusion errors. Although preliminary results suggested a relationship between ACT performance and measures across several cognitive domains including attention, verbal fluency, processing speed, set switching, working memory, and verbal learning, most of these relationships were not significant after accounting for educational level and estimated intelligence, highlighting the importance of accounting for these variables in statistical models.

Ultimately, only education, intelligence, simple processing speed (Trails A), verbal working memory (LNS), and impulsivity (CPT-II Commission Errors) were related to ACT performance. These results bear some similarities to EFA which suggested factors representing cognitive flexibility, processing speed, and attention and short-term memory which included verbal and performance IQ. We did not find a significant relationship between cognitive flexibility and ACT above and beyond the effects of general intelligence, possibly due to differences in study design. Primary factor contained variance attributed by the WCST which was not included in this study. Our results do not support the previous view that the ACT primarily assesses executive functioning or short-term memory decay; rather it seems to be measuring general intellectual ability and psychomotor speed. Qualitatively, the few errors committed on the 0-s trial appeared to be related to auditory processing or hearing issues, and all involved phonemic substitutions (e.g., P for B).

Auditory Consonant Trigrams Test

This could suggest that those participants have problems in auditory phonemic processing or general auditory impairment, but this hypothesis needs evaluation in future studies. Also, Veterans are at higher risk of tinnitus than non-Veterans (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.9–2.9; 11.7%), which could negatively affect speech discrimination and help explain the findings , but such data were not available with our sample.

Furthermore, because stimuli were not prerecorded, it is also possible that these errors are actually related to poor stimulus presentation on the part of the assessor. Limitations of the study included sample characteristics and analytics. Participants in the total sample included Veterans with current psychiatric diagnoses and a history of mTBI. Data used from this total sample for the primary analyses were also limited to individuals with a relatively high educational level ( M = 13.74 years of education) and who were in early adulthood ( M = 35.54 years of age). However, the presented normative data for the healthy subsample reflected lack of known neurological insult due to TBI, lack of current psychiatric diagnoses, and all had valid test results based on one stand-alone performance validity test (PVT).

Nonetheless, the healthy sample was small ( n = 58), and although education and intellectual functioning were shown to affect ACT performance, it was not possible to derive normative data accounting for those variables due to the small size of the healthy group. Additional research is needed to support these findings, especially since the larger body of results appears to be mixed. Further research on ACT performance across a broad age range is necessary to support findings that ACT performance is unrelated to age. Although a more thorough item error analysis was beyond the scope of the project, these preliminary findings suggest that errors on the 0-s trial are rare and possibly related to auditory processing.

Future projects might further examine errors, particularly those related to phonemic substitution. Examining the effect of standardized stimulus presentation (i.e., prerecorded stimuli) would also further clarify the possible contributing factors. These findings may also suggest that future studies examining the effect of tinnitus on ACT performance would improve clinical utility of the test. Future research may seek to improve general understanding of the ACT task more broadly, including qualities of the distractor task such as length of time between presentation of letters and counting (permitting possible rehearsal of letters) or engagement in counting, accuracy of counting, and use of the ACT with more cognitively impaired populations. Furthermore, the version of the ACT used in this study did not account for performance during the distractor task (e.g., number of errors or number correct). Also, the larger battery did not include measures allowing an evaluation of the contributions of math skills (e.g., math fluency) to ACT performance.

Finally, a single PVT was used for excluding those with invalid performance (WMT). One study found that the WMT identified performance of more participants as invalid than another common PVT, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the false concordance rate was 27.9%. This could either mean that the WMT is more sensitive to invalid performance (making it ideal for the psychometric purposes here) or more susceptible to false-positive identification of invalid performance (in which case, this study is only affected by lost power, which still remained acceptable). In either case, the test is most likely not 100% sensitive and some subjects performing below their full capacity may have been included in the analyses. Nevertheless, the current study represents a methodological improvement as most previous studies on the ACT did not consider performance validity (e.g.,; ).

Overall, the ACT total score demonstrated good psychometric properties and appears to be a viable assessment tool in the OEF/OIF/OND Veteran population. Funding This research was supported by resources of the W.G. “Bill” Hefner Veterans Affairs Medical Center, the Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment. Conflict of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose. The prospective studies from which these data were drawn were reviewed and approved by the W.G. (Bill) Hefner VA Medical Center (Hefner VAMC) Institutional Review Board. The welfare and privacy of human subjects was protected and maintained.