Although studies have shown unique variance contributions from performance invalidity, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of cognitive data in the setting of failed performance validity tests (PVT). Furthermore, a clearer understanding of the clinical utility of cognitive data in the context of invalid PVTs is necessary to inform decisions about battery length once PVTs are failed. The primary aim of the current study is to broadly describe cognitive outcomes in the setting of PVT failure.

Two hundred and twenty-two veterans with a history of mild traumatic brain injury referred for clinical evaluation completed cognitive and performance validity measures. Standardized scores were characterized as Within Normal Limits and Below Normal Limits at the normative 16th percentile and number of Within Normal Limits scores were calculated for each participant. Cognitive outcomes are described across four commonly used PVTs. Rates of below normal limits cognitive performance, and PVT failure were assessed via student’s t tests among participants who were classified as productive or unproductive based on involvement in work and/or school.

Among participants who performed in the invalid range on TOMM trial 1, 36-81% of cognitive data reflected within normal limits performance. Similarly, 47-81% of those who demonstrated performance invalidity based on the Word Memory Test (WMT) earned broadly within normal limits scores across cognitive testing. For those with invalid performance based on the normative digit span scaled score, 35-88% of cognitive data was at or above the 16th percentile. Within normal limits across cognitive tests ranged from 16-71% when the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition forced choice was used as an indicator of performance validity. In the context of PVT failure, the average number of cognitive performances below the 16th percentile ranged from 5-7 of 14 tasks depending on which PVT measure was applied. Within the total sample, there were no differences in the total number of below normal limits performances on cognitive measures between productive and unproductive participants (T = 1.65, p = 1.00). Additionally, there were no differences in the total number of PVTs failed between the productive and unproductive groups (T = 0.33, p = 0.743).

Results of the current study suggest that the range of within normal limits cognitive performance in the context of failed performance validity measures varies greatly. Importantly, findings indicate that neurocognitive data may still provide important practical information regarding cognitive abilities (i.e., that test takers can oftentimes perform within broadly normal limits on many cognitive tasks), despite poor PVT outcomes. Further, given that neither rates of below normal limits cognitive performance nor rates of PVT failures differed among productivity groups, results have important implications for decisions to continue testing and recommendations in a clinical setting.

COVID-19 misinformation proliferating online has led to adverse health and societal consequences. Older adults are a particularly vulnerable population due to increased risk for both COVID-19 related complications and susceptibility to, as well as sharing of, misinformation on social networking sites. The present study aimed to: 1) investigate differences in COVID-19 headline accuracy discernment and online sharing of COVID-19 misinformation in older and younger adults; and 2) examine individual differences in global cognition, health literacy and verbal IQ in online sharing of COVID-19 misinformation.

Fifty-two younger (age 18 to 35 years) and fifty older adults (age 50 and older) completed a telephone neurocognitive battery, health literacy and numeracy measures and self-report questionnaires. Participants also completed a social media headline-sharing experiment (Pennycook et al.,2020) in which they were presented true and false COVID-19 headlines and asked to indicate: 1) the likelihood that they would share the story on social media; and 2) the factual accuracy of the story.

A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance controlling for gender and race/ethnicity showed no effects of age (p=.099), but a significant interaction between actual COVID-19 headline accuracy and likelihood of sharing (p<.001), such that accuracy is more strongly related to sharing false headlines (r=-.64) versus true headlines (r=-.43). Moreover, higher likelihood of sharing false COVID-19 headlines was associated with lower verbal IQ and numeracy skills in older adults (rs=-.51--.40; ps<.01) and with lower verbal IQ, numeracy, and global cognition in younger adults (rs=-.66--.60; ps<.01).

Findings indicate that headline accuracy judgements are an important predictor of sharing COVID-19 misinformation in both older and younger adults. Further, individual differences in cognition, IQ, and numeracy may predict the likelihood of misinformation sharing in younger adults, while IQ and numeracy skills may act as important antecedents of misinformation sharing in older adults. Future work might leverage modern, neuropsychologically-based psychoeducation approaches to improving health and science literacy related to COVID-19.

For decades, quantitative psychologists have recommended that authors report effect sizes to convey the magnitude and potential clinical relevance of statistical associations. However, fewer than one-third of neuropsychology articles published in the early 2000s reported effect sizes. This study re-examines the frequency and extent of effect size reporting in neuropsychology journal articles by manuscript section and over time.

A sample of 326 empirical articles were drawn from 36 randomly selected issues of six neuropsychology journals at 5-year intervals between 1995 and 2020. Four raters used a novel, reliable coding system to quantify the extent to which effect sizes were included in the major sections of all 326 articles.

Findings showed medium-to-large increases in effect size reporting in the Methods and Results sections of neuropsychology journal articles that plateaued in recent years; however, there were only very small and nonsignificant changes in effect size reporting in the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections.

Authors in neuropsychology journals have markedly improved their effect size reporting in the core Methods and Results sections, but are still unlikely to consider these valuable metrics when motivating their study hypotheses and interpreting the conceptual and clinical implications of their findings. Recommendations are provided to encourage more widespread integration of effect sizes in neuropsychological research.

The internet serves an increasingly critical role in how older adults manage their personal health. Electronic patient portals, for example, provide a centralized platform for older adults to access lab results, manage prescriptions and appointments, and communicate with providers. This study examined whether neurocognition mediates the effect of older age on electronic patient portal navigation.

Forty-nine younger (18–35 years) and 35 older adults (50–75 years) completed the Test of Online Health Records Navigation (TOHRN), which is an experimenter-controlled website on which participants were asked to log-in, review laboratory results, read provider messages, and schedule an appointment. Participants also completed a neuropsychological battery, self-report questionnaires, and measures of health literacy and functional capacity.

Mediation analyses revealed a significant indirect effect of older age on lower TOHRN accuracy, which was fully mediated by the total cognitive composite.

Findings indicate that neurocognition may help explain some of the variance in age-related difficulties navigating electronic patient health portals. Future studies might examine the possible benefits of both structural (e.g., human factors web design enhancement) and individual (e.g., training and compensation) cognitive supports to improve the navigability of electronic patient health portals for older adults.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals.

Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender.

Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field.

Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic.