Martin Rohling | University of South Alabama (original) (raw)

Papers by Martin Rohling

Research paper thumbnail of A Quantitative Review of the History of Clinical Neuropsychology in North America: Influential People and Organizations

Oxford University Press eBooks, May 7, 2020

Objective: To quantitatively measure influence of both individuals and organizations in the field... more Objective: To quantitatively measure influence of both individuals and organizations in the field of neuropsychology, analyzing data from four organizations: The International Neuropsychological Society (INS), the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), Society for Neuropsychology (SCN; APA Division 40), and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). Methods: Individuals were ranked in four domains of influence: (1) organizational leadership (e.g., number, significance of offices); (2) speaking at annual meetings (number, significance of presentations); (3) editorial board membership (number, significance of board membership) for the official journals of INS, NAN, SCN and AACN; (4) impact of publications (citation impact). The top 100 individuals were ranked for each of the four domains, extending back in time to the founding year of each organization (Puente & Marcotte, 2000; Rourke & Murji, 2000; Bush, 2011; McCartney, 2011) up through and including 2017. Rankings were transformed to a common metric. For the analysis of organizational influence (membership size, size of meeting, impact factor of each official organization journal), we analyzed data from the past 20 years through and including 2017. Results: The top 100 neuropsychologists in each of the four domains represent about 3% of persons surveyed, and often appeared in other domains. Nonetheless, factor analysis yielded two factors: (1) a factor characterizing organizational leadership, editorial board membership, and speaking at annual meetings; and (2) a factor defined solely by citation impact. Organizationally, AACN is growing most rapidly, with membership stable in INS and declining slightly in NAN and SCN. Many leading neuropsychologists belong to all four organizations.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: reply to Nichols (2017)

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Oct 10, 2017

We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI... more We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) as a measure of symptom exaggeration versus a measure of litigation response syndrome (LRS). Nichols claims that we misrepresented the thrust of the original paper he co-authored with Gass; namely, that they did not represent that the FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS but rather, intended to convey that the FBS/RBS-r were indeterminate as to whether the scales measured LRS or measured symptom exaggeration. Our original commentary offered statistical support from published literature that (1) FBS/FBS-r were associated with performance validity test (PVT) failure, establishing the scales as measures of symptom exaggeration, and (2) persons in litigation who passed PVTs did not produce clinically significant elevations on the scales, contradicting that FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS. In the present commentary, we draw a distinction between the psychometric data we present supporting the validity of FBS/FBS-r, and the conceptual, non-statistical arguments presented by Nichols, who does not refute our original empirically based conclusions.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Mild traumatic brain injury

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Fundamental forensic statistics: Statistics every forensic neuropsychologist must know

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Age of first exposure to football and later-life cognitive impairment in former NFL playersAuthor Response

Neurology, Sep 14, 2015

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Shift happens: The gender composition in clinical neuropsychology over five decades

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Jun 30, 2020

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of ‘litigation response syndrome’: commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015)

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Aug 22, 2017

To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that th... more To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF FBS/FBS-r Symptom Validity Scale is a measure of Litigation Response Syndrome (LRS), representing a credible set of responses and reactions of claimants to the experience of being in litigation, rather than a measure of non-credible symptom report, as the scale is typically used; and (2) to address their stated concerns about the validity of FBS/FBS-r meta-analytic results, and the risk of false positive elevations in persons with bona-fide medical conditions. Review of published literature on the FBS/FBS-r, focusing in particular on associations between scores on this symptom validity test and scores on performance validity tests (PVTs), and FBS/FBS-r score elevations in patients with genuine neurologic, psychiatric and medical problems. (1) several investigations show significant associations between FBS/FBS-r scores and PVTs measuring non-credible performance; (2) litigants who pass PVTs do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r; (3) non-litigating medical patients (bariatric surgery candidates, persons with sleep disorders, and patients with severe traumatic brain injury) who have multiple physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r. Two meta-analytic studies show large effect sizes for FBS/FBS-r of similar magnitude. FBS/FBS-r measures non-credible symptom report rather than legitimate experience of litigation stress. Importantly, the absence of significant FBS/FBS-r elevations in litigants who pass PVTs demonstrating credible performance, directly contradicts the contention of Nichols and Gass that the scale measures LRS. These data, meta-analytic publications, and recent test use surveys support the admissibility of FBS/FBS-r under both Daubert and the older Frye criteria.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Apr 6, 2021

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Use of multiple performance and symptom validity measures: Determining the optimal per test cutoff for determination of invalidity, analysis of skew, and inter-test correlations in valid and invalid performance groups

The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2019

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Premorbid estimates of neuropsychological functioning for diverse groups

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 2019

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Assessing violence in adults

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of APA handbook of forensic neuropsychology

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The “Miserable Minority” Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Who Are They and do Meta-Analyses Hide Them?

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Feb 1, 2012

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: reply to Nichols (2017)

The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2017

We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validi... more We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) as a measure of symptom exaggeration versus a measure of litigation response syndrome (LRS). Nichols claims that we misrepresented the thrust of the original paper he co-authored with Gass; namely, that they did not represent that the FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS but rather, intended to convey that the FBS/RBS-r were indeterminate as to whether the scales measured LRS or measured symptom exaggeration. Our original commentary offered statistical support from published literature that (1) FBS/FBS-r were associated with performance validity test (PVT) failure, establishing the scales as measures of symptom exaggeration, and (2) persons in litigation who passed PVTs did not produce clinically significant elevations on the scales, contradicting that FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS. In the present commentary, we draw a distinction between the psychometric data we present ...

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Taking care of money matters

American Journal of Psychiatry, 1997

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of 'litigation response syndrome': commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015)

The Clinical neuropsychologist, Jan 22, 2017

To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that th... more To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF FBS/FBS-r Symptom Validity Scale is a measure of Litigation Response Syndrome (LRS), representing a credible set of responses and reactions of claimants to the experience of being in litigation, rather than a measure of non-credible symptom report, as the scale is typically used; and (2) to address their stated concerns about the validity of FBS/FBS-r meta-analytic results, and the risk of false positive elevations in persons with bona-fide medical conditions. Review of published literature on the FBS/FBS-r, focusing in particular on associations between scores on this symptom validity test and scores on performance validity tests (PVTs), and FBS/FBS-r score elevations in patients with genuine neurologic, psychiatric and medical problems. (1) several investigations show significant associations between FBS/FBS-r scores and PVTs measuring non-credible performance; (2) l...

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of EST at MPA

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of 989; 1; 507 J Aging Health Mental Health Status in Older Adults Cognitive Processes, Self-Reports of Memory Functioning, and

Journal of Aging and Health

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Automatic and Effortful Memory Processess in Elderly Persons With Organic Brain Pathology

Journal of Gerontology, 1991

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Suboptimal Performance:�When Do Methods & Mood Matter?

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of A Quantitative Review of the History of Clinical Neuropsychology in North America: Influential People and Organizations

Oxford University Press eBooks, May 7, 2020

Objective: To quantitatively measure influence of both individuals and organizations in the field... more Objective: To quantitatively measure influence of both individuals and organizations in the field of neuropsychology, analyzing data from four organizations: The International Neuropsychological Society (INS), the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), Society for Neuropsychology (SCN; APA Division 40), and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). Methods: Individuals were ranked in four domains of influence: (1) organizational leadership (e.g., number, significance of offices); (2) speaking at annual meetings (number, significance of presentations); (3) editorial board membership (number, significance of board membership) for the official journals of INS, NAN, SCN and AACN; (4) impact of publications (citation impact). The top 100 individuals were ranked for each of the four domains, extending back in time to the founding year of each organization (Puente & Marcotte, 2000; Rourke & Murji, 2000; Bush, 2011; McCartney, 2011) up through and including 2017. Rankings were transformed to a common metric. For the analysis of organizational influence (membership size, size of meeting, impact factor of each official organization journal), we analyzed data from the past 20 years through and including 2017. Results: The top 100 neuropsychologists in each of the four domains represent about 3% of persons surveyed, and often appeared in other domains. Nonetheless, factor analysis yielded two factors: (1) a factor characterizing organizational leadership, editorial board membership, and speaking at annual meetings; and (2) a factor defined solely by citation impact. Organizationally, AACN is growing most rapidly, with membership stable in INS and declining slightly in NAN and SCN. Many leading neuropsychologists belong to all four organizations.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: reply to Nichols (2017)

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Oct 10, 2017

We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI... more We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) as a measure of symptom exaggeration versus a measure of litigation response syndrome (LRS). Nichols claims that we misrepresented the thrust of the original paper he co-authored with Gass; namely, that they did not represent that the FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS but rather, intended to convey that the FBS/RBS-r were indeterminate as to whether the scales measured LRS or measured symptom exaggeration. Our original commentary offered statistical support from published literature that (1) FBS/FBS-r were associated with performance validity test (PVT) failure, establishing the scales as measures of symptom exaggeration, and (2) persons in litigation who passed PVTs did not produce clinically significant elevations on the scales, contradicting that FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS. In the present commentary, we draw a distinction between the psychometric data we present supporting the validity of FBS/FBS-r, and the conceptual, non-statistical arguments presented by Nichols, who does not refute our original empirically based conclusions.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Mild traumatic brain injury

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Fundamental forensic statistics: Statistics every forensic neuropsychologist must know

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Age of first exposure to football and later-life cognitive impairment in former NFL playersAuthor Response

Neurology, Sep 14, 2015

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Shift happens: The gender composition in clinical neuropsychology over five decades

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Jun 30, 2020

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of ‘litigation response syndrome’: commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015)

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Aug 22, 2017

To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that th... more To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF FBS/FBS-r Symptom Validity Scale is a measure of Litigation Response Syndrome (LRS), representing a credible set of responses and reactions of claimants to the experience of being in litigation, rather than a measure of non-credible symptom report, as the scale is typically used; and (2) to address their stated concerns about the validity of FBS/FBS-r meta-analytic results, and the risk of false positive elevations in persons with bona-fide medical conditions. Review of published literature on the FBS/FBS-r, focusing in particular on associations between scores on this symptom validity test and scores on performance validity tests (PVTs), and FBS/FBS-r score elevations in patients with genuine neurologic, psychiatric and medical problems. (1) several investigations show significant associations between FBS/FBS-r scores and PVTs measuring non-credible performance; (2) litigants who pass PVTs do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r; (3) non-litigating medical patients (bariatric surgery candidates, persons with sleep disorders, and patients with severe traumatic brain injury) who have multiple physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r. Two meta-analytic studies show large effect sizes for FBS/FBS-r of similar magnitude. FBS/FBS-r measures non-credible symptom report rather than legitimate experience of litigation stress. Importantly, the absence of significant FBS/FBS-r elevations in litigants who pass PVTs demonstrating credible performance, directly contradicts the contention of Nichols and Gass that the scale measures LRS. These data, meta-analytic publications, and recent test use surveys support the admissibility of FBS/FBS-r under both Daubert and the older Frye criteria.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Apr 6, 2021

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Use of multiple performance and symptom validity measures: Determining the optimal per test cutoff for determination of invalidity, analysis of skew, and inter-test correlations in valid and invalid performance groups

The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2019

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Premorbid estimates of neuropsychological functioning for diverse groups

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 2019

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Assessing violence in adults

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of APA handbook of forensic neuropsychology

American Psychological Association eBooks, 2017

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The “Miserable Minority” Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Who Are They and do Meta-Analyses Hide Them?

Clinical Neuropsychologist, Feb 1, 2012

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: reply to Nichols (2017)

The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2017

We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validi... more We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) as a measure of symptom exaggeration versus a measure of litigation response syndrome (LRS). Nichols claims that we misrepresented the thrust of the original paper he co-authored with Gass; namely, that they did not represent that the FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS but rather, intended to convey that the FBS/RBS-r were indeterminate as to whether the scales measured LRS or measured symptom exaggeration. Our original commentary offered statistical support from published literature that (1) FBS/FBS-r were associated with performance validity test (PVT) failure, establishing the scales as measures of symptom exaggeration, and (2) persons in litigation who passed PVTs did not produce clinically significant elevations on the scales, contradicting that FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS. In the present commentary, we draw a distinction between the psychometric data we present ...

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Taking care of money matters

American Journal of Psychiatry, 1997

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of 'litigation response syndrome': commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015)

The Clinical neuropsychologist, Jan 22, 2017

To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that th... more To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF FBS/FBS-r Symptom Validity Scale is a measure of Litigation Response Syndrome (LRS), representing a credible set of responses and reactions of claimants to the experience of being in litigation, rather than a measure of non-credible symptom report, as the scale is typically used; and (2) to address their stated concerns about the validity of FBS/FBS-r meta-analytic results, and the risk of false positive elevations in persons with bona-fide medical conditions. Review of published literature on the FBS/FBS-r, focusing in particular on associations between scores on this symptom validity test and scores on performance validity tests (PVTs), and FBS/FBS-r score elevations in patients with genuine neurologic, psychiatric and medical problems. (1) several investigations show significant associations between FBS/FBS-r scores and PVTs measuring non-credible performance; (2) l...

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of EST at MPA

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of 989; 1; 507 J Aging Health Mental Health Status in Older Adults Cognitive Processes, Self-Reports of Memory Functioning, and

Journal of Aging and Health

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Automatic and Effortful Memory Processess in Elderly Persons With Organic Brain Pathology

Journal of Gerontology, 1991

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Suboptimal Performance:�When Do Methods & Mood Matter?

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact