PhD & MS - University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa Internship - Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA Postdoctoral Fellowship - Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR Phone: 2514607675 Address: 75 South University Blvd. 1000 UCOM Room 1514 Department of Psychology University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36688-0002
We applaud Dr. Bigler’s signaling the need for attention to the future prospects of neuropsycholo... more We applaud Dr. Bigler’s signaling the need for attention to the future prospects of neuropsychology in a competitive environment, and his enduring enthusiasm and leadership in encouraging neuropsychologists to involve themselves in neuroradiological imaging ( Bigler, 2001). However, we have several concerns about possible misinterpretation of the data and views presented in the article entitled “The lesion(s) in traumatic brain injury: implications for clinical neuropsychology.” Our first concern is the blurring of the effects of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) with the effects of moderate and severe brain injury. Another concern is the pervasive tendency to suggest physiological origins of observed effects such as subjective complaints and test measures. Physiological origins are presumed far beyond the explanatory power of the available scientific literature. A third concern is a broad tendency to ignore and discount psychological explanations for the observed effects, specifically including a conspicuous failure to take into account recent literature on the profound effects of effort, response bias, and compensation-related contexts. The title, abstract, and introduction to Dr. Bigler’s article refer to traumatic brain injury (TBI) in general. There is no language in the title, abstract or introduction to indicate that his focus would be limited to moderate or severe TBI, and his conclusion makes an ambiguous reference to damage caused by “at least mild-moderate to severe TBI” (p. 123). The introduction states, “This review focuses on the neuropathological substrates of TBI in relation to
This article reports a meta-analysis of 25 samples in 20 peer-reviewed published neuropsychologic... more This article reports a meta-analysis of 25 samples in 20 peer-reviewed published neuropsychological studies of the cognitive, psychological, motor, and sensory/perceptual effects of exposure to manganese. These studies included 1,410 exposed participants and 1,322 controls, for a total N = 2,732. Studies were excluded from this analysis if they were unpublished, had uncodeable data, were based on fewer than four participants, failed to have a comparison group, or reported on manganese effects other than cognitive or sensory/motor (e.g., liver functioning). Because the independent variables defining manganese exposure varied across studies, effect sizes were calculated for exposed versus non-exposed workers. Dose-response relations were considered for measures of manganese levels in air/dust (84% of studies reported), blood (MnB; 76% reported), urine (MnU; 52% reported), and hair samples (4% reported). Level of exposure was also estimated by reported years of exposure (M = 13.1 years). Cohen's d statistic yielded a statistically significant weighted mean effect size of - .17, p < .0001 for manganese exposure. However, an effect this small is typically undetectable when evaluating individuals because it is smaller (about 1/6 SD) than the confidence intervals of most neuropsychological measures. Because the effect is so slight and the overlap so great between exposed and unexposed participants (87%), the error rate would exceed the hit rate if causal conclusions were rendered for occupational exposure to manganese as the source of an individual's cognitive, sensory, or motor impairments based on neuropsychological testing or symptom reports.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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...
We applaud Dr. Bigler’s signaling the need for attention to the future prospects of neuropsycholo... more We applaud Dr. Bigler’s signaling the need for attention to the future prospects of neuropsychology in a competitive environment, and his enduring enthusiasm and leadership in encouraging neuropsychologists to involve themselves in neuroradiological imaging ( Bigler, 2001). However, we have several concerns about possible misinterpretation of the data and views presented in the article entitled “The lesion(s) in traumatic brain injury: implications for clinical neuropsychology.” Our first concern is the blurring of the effects of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) with the effects of moderate and severe brain injury. Another concern is the pervasive tendency to suggest physiological origins of observed effects such as subjective complaints and test measures. Physiological origins are presumed far beyond the explanatory power of the available scientific literature. A third concern is a broad tendency to ignore and discount psychological explanations for the observed effects, specifically including a conspicuous failure to take into account recent literature on the profound effects of effort, response bias, and compensation-related contexts. The title, abstract, and introduction to Dr. Bigler’s article refer to traumatic brain injury (TBI) in general. There is no language in the title, abstract or introduction to indicate that his focus would be limited to moderate or severe TBI, and his conclusion makes an ambiguous reference to damage caused by “at least mild-moderate to severe TBI” (p. 123). The introduction states, “This review focuses on the neuropathological substrates of TBI in relation to
This article reports a meta-analysis of 25 samples in 20 peer-reviewed published neuropsychologic... more This article reports a meta-analysis of 25 samples in 20 peer-reviewed published neuropsychological studies of the cognitive, psychological, motor, and sensory/perceptual effects of exposure to manganese. These studies included 1,410 exposed participants and 1,322 controls, for a total N = 2,732. Studies were excluded from this analysis if they were unpublished, had uncodeable data, were based on fewer than four participants, failed to have a comparison group, or reported on manganese effects other than cognitive or sensory/motor (e.g., liver functioning). Because the independent variables defining manganese exposure varied across studies, effect sizes were calculated for exposed versus non-exposed workers. Dose-response relations were considered for measures of manganese levels in air/dust (84% of studies reported), blood (MnB; 76% reported), urine (MnU; 52% reported), and hair samples (4% reported). Level of exposure was also estimated by reported years of exposure (M = 13.1 years). Cohen's d statistic yielded a statistically significant weighted mean effect size of - .17, p < .0001 for manganese exposure. However, an effect this small is typically undetectable when evaluating individuals because it is smaller (about 1/6 SD) than the confidence intervals of most neuropsychological measures. Because the effect is so slight and the overlap so great between exposed and unexposed participants (87%), the error rate would exceed the hit rate if causal conclusions were rendered for occupational exposure to manganese as the source of an individual's cognitive, sensory, or motor impairments based on neuropsychological testing or symptom reports.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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...
Uploads
Papers by Martin Rohling