Affiliations: [a] Private Practice, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | [b] University of British Columbia Vancouver, and Riverview Hospital, BC, Canada
Correspondence:
[*]
Neurobehavioural Associates, Suite #201, 17107 -- 107 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T5S 1G3. Author notes: Paul Green, Ph.D. is in private practice with Neurobehavioural
Associates in Edmonton, Alberta and Grant Iverson,
Ph.D. is affiliated with the Department of Psychiatry at the University
of British Columbia in Vancouver and the Neuropsychiatry Units at
Riverview Hospital in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between exaggeration and scores on a test of olfactory discrimination in patients being assessed in connection with a claim for financial benefits. Participants were 448 patients referred to a private practice in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada for psychological or neuropsychological assessment, related to evaluation of impairment and disability resulting from a work-related or non-work related accident. All patients were involved in some form of compensation claim at the time of their evaluation. All patients completed two tests designed to detect exaggerated cognitive deficits, the Computerized Assessment of Response Bias (CARB) and the Word Memory Test (WMT) as part of their evaluation. The diagnostic groups included 322 head injury cases, varying from very minor to very severe. Normative data for the smell test were derived from 126 patients with orthopedic injuries who passed both the CARB and the WMT. Patients with more severe traumatic brain injuries were 10-12 times more likely to have olfactory deficits than persons with trivial to mild head injuries. In a subgroup of patients who failed either the CARB or the WMT, there was no relationship between injury severity and total scores on the smell test. Therefore, the dose-response relationship between brain injury severity and olfactory deficits is severely attenuated when patients who are probably exaggerating their cognitive deficits are included in the analyses. Those patients with trivial to mild head injuries who demonstrated adequate effort on both the CARB and the WMT were no more likely to show olfactory deficits than the non-head-injured orthopedic control subjects. Therefore, anosmia following mild traumatic brain injury should not be concluded from self-reports or from tests of smell unless tests of effort have been passed. Effort should also be controlled in group studies of olfaction.
