China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Forensic Assessment
Published in Louis B. Schlesinger, Sexual Murder, 2021
In this case, it proved helpful to administer the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Malingerers believe that the test is very difficult for people with genuine memory impairments, and they intentionally perform poorly, while nonmalingering individuals, even those with substantial cognitive impairment (such as dementia and traumatic brain injury), exert their full effort and easily do well. They have high scores on the TOMM. Malingerers, however, score very low on the TOMM. Any score lower than 45 on the three trials of the test should raise concerns that the individual is malingering. In this case, the defendant scored 8, 10, and 6 on the three TOMM trials, a result that suggested he was making an intentional and concerted effort to do poorly for obvious reasons, just as he had done on the IQ test. The documentation of malingering on the TOMM—as well as his having intact adaptive functioning—suggested that the defendant was clearly attempting to feign intellectual deficiency for obvious reasons.
Take Their Word for It: The Inventory of Problems Provides Valuable Information on Both Symptom and Performance Validity
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2023
Matthew Holcomb, Sadie Pyne, Laura Cutler, David A. Oikle, Laszlo A. Erdodi
To address this gap in the literature, the present study was designed to examine the validity of the IOP instruments (IOP-29 and IOP-M) in assessing the credibility of the clinical presentations of a sample of adults referred for neuropsychological assessment. Two PVTs were used as primary criterion variables. In addition, to establish a benchmark, the criterion-related validity of the IOP-29 was compared to that of an established SVT, and the criterion-related validity of the IOP-M was compared to that of another established PVT. That is, to allow clinicians to evaluate the relative utility of the IOP-29 and IOP-M, their classification accuracy was directly compared to that of other established instruments: the Negative Impression Management scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (NIMPAI) and the first trial of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM-1), respectively. Such head-to-head comparisons [i.e., the IOP-29 against an established SVT (NIMPAI) and the IOP-M against an established PVT (TOMM-1)] provide a yardstick against which to assess the signal detection profile of the novel tests (Erdodi, 2022). In addition, they provide additional scrutiny of the internal validity of the design, by monitoring the risk of instrument-specific findings.
Symptom and performance validity in neuropsychological assessments of outpatients 15-30 years of age
Published in Brain Injury, 2023
Egeland, Andersson (12) assessed a mixed neurological sample using the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) as an SVT, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the forced recognition section of the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT-FR) as PVTs, and several other self-rating scales and cognitive tests. They documented that the SIMS explained more of the variance in the self-rating scales than TOMM. Conversely, TOMM explained more of the variance in some of the cognitive tests, predominantly delayed verbal recall, than SIMS. Dandachi-FitzGerald, van Twillert (13) assessed various clinical samples and revealed that 18.9% of patients with neurological conditions had a score above the cutoff in the SIMS, and moreover that 15.9% of the patients scored below the cutoff in the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory test (ASTM), applied as a PVT. They also found an association between SIMS and self-reported symptoms, and an association between ASTM and cognitive test performance.
Failing Performance Validity Cutoffs on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) Is Specific, but Insensitive to Non-Credible Responding
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2022
Shayna Nussbaum, Natalie May, Laura Cutler, Christopher A Abeare, Mark Watson, Laszlo A Erdodi
The only free-standing PVT consistently administered was the first trial of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM-1). Although initially conceived as an inactive learning trial, the TOMM-1 has gradually become a veritable PVT on its own (Bauer, O’Bryant, Lynch, McCaffrey, & Fisher, 2007; Denning, 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2021; Fazio, Denning, & Denney, 2017; Gavett, O’Bryant, Fisher, & McCaffrey, 2005; Greve, Bianchini, & Doane, 2006; Hilsabeck, Gordon, Hietpas-Wilson, & Zartman, 2011; Jones, 2013; Kulas, Axelrod, & Rinaldi, 2014; O’Bryant, Engel, Kleiner, Vasterling, & Black, 2007, 2008; Rai & Erdodi, 2021; Soble et al., 2020; Stenclik, Miele, Silk-Eglit, Lynch, & McCaffrey, 2013; Webber et al., 2018; Wisdom, Brown, Chen, & Collins, 2012). A recent meta-analysis by Martin et al. (2020) confirmed its robust classification accuracy.