Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Forensic Assessment
Published in Louis B. Schlesinger, Sexual Murder, 2021
It is also not uncommon for a criminal defendant to feign cognitive loss, intellectual disability, and, most commonly, amnesia. The Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996) is a well-designed and useful test to assess malingered memory loss. The test initially appears very difficult but is extremely easy; there are cutoff scores to determine whether the subject’s memory or cognitive loss is real. In many forensic assessments, the issue of amnesia emerges. The defendant might remember everything with respect to his activities before and following the homicide, but for the brief period where the victim was killed there is a claim of loss of memory. Malingered amnesia is not at all uncommon in criminal cases; it occurs basically for two reasons: (1) many defendants believe that it is to their legal advantage to say they do not remember the offense, and (2) many defendants do not want to remember and discuss what they have done.
Civil Law and Deception
Published in Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier, Detecting Malingering and Deception, 2020
Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier
A sixth method for successful faking without being detected is to avoid certain commonly used malingering methods of high reliability and validity (Jelicic, Ceunen, Peters, & Merckelbach, 2011). Jelicic and colleagues studied the Test of Memory Malingering and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Coaching on the Test of Memory Malingering and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology did not affect accuracy, however. The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology test scores accurately classified feigning for 93% of symptom-coached Ss and 86% of symptom/test-coached Ss.
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.
Detecting Coached Feigning of Schizophrenia with the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) and Its Memory Module (IOP-M): A Simulation Study on a French Community Sample
Published in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2022
Ingrid Banovic, Federica Filippi, Donald J. Viglione, Fabrizio Scrima, Alessandro Zennaro, Angelo Zappalà, Luciano Giromini
Thankfully, several instruments are available to forensic assessors to evaluate the credibility of presented complaints. These are typically conceived as belonging to two broad conceptual categories: symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) (Iverson, 2006; Larrabee, 2012). SVTs are self-report measures designed to evaluate the extent to which the examinee complains about symptoms that do not exist in the real clinical world (sometimes called “pseudosymptoms”) or that are experienced rarely by genuinely impaired patients. As an example, the Structured Inventory of the Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997) presents 75 rare symptoms or pseudosymptoms, whose endorsement is infrequent among bona fide patient responders. PVTs, in contrast, are performance-based measures of cognitive ability designed to detect poor motivation, effort, or cooperation. An example is the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), which presents the test-taker with a series of seemingly difficult memory tasks, that are in fact very simple. As individuals with genuine cognitive disorders typically manage the tasks with no particular problems, an excessively poor performance raises suspicion on the credibility of the overall clinical presentation of the test-taker.