Do warnings deter rather than produce more sophisticated malingering?

ABSTRACTIntroduction: The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Word Memory Test (WMT) are both performance validity tests (PVTs) that use a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) recognition memory format. Several studies have reported that these tests are susceptible to cognitive impairment and that the WMT is more susceptible than the TOMM. The current study explored components of recognition memory (i.e., conscious recollection and familiarity) underlying the TOMM and WMT to identify factors that make them susceptible and resilient to cognitive impairment. Method: Fifty-four nonclinical undergraduate research participants were administered the TOMM and WMT while providing introspective judgments about their recognition memory using the remember/know/guess procedure. In addition, half of participants were administered dual-task interference, a manipulation intended to reduce recollection, during these tests, while the other half completed these tests without interference. Standard cutoffs on the TOMM and WMT were explored, as well as alternative cutoffs based on TOMM Trial 1 scores. Results: The WMT was more impacted by dual-task interference than standard TOMM cutoff trials, while alternative TOMM cutoff trials were equally impacted by dual-task interference relative to the WMT. Dual-task interference reduced recollection on these tests, but spared familiarity. Standard TOMM trials and the WMT were relatively comparable on levels of recollection, but familiarity contributed more to the TOMM than to the WMT. Alternative TOMM trials possessed lower familiarity and recollection than standard TOMM trials and lower recollection than the WMT. Conclusions: Reduced recollection places examinees at risk of failing the TOMM and WMT, while familiarity contributes to the relative resilience of the standard TOMM. Future development of 2AFC recognition memory PVTs should attempt to maximize the contribution of familiarity to their completion.

This study sought to cross-validate the utility of Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) cut-offs derived in a large Colombian sample with further exploration of the impact of age, education, and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) scores on TOMM trials. To address these aims, the study examines concordance rates of the TOMM scores by demographics and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) test performance. Additionally, item response theory analysis (IRT) focused on the interaction between demographic variables and the psychometric properties of the TOMM items. Data were collected from 1416 healthy controls (58.6% female; M age = 58.19; M education = 9 years) who completed the TOMM, MMSE, and HVLT-R as part of a comprehensive battery conducted in Spanish. Frequency analysis was used to assess for concordance rates of passing TOMMe10, Trial 1, and Trial 2 scores, further broken down by median split for MMSE, education, and age. Additionally, IRT is used to examine, in detail, the psychometric properties of the TOMM items and relationships to demographic variables. Validity classification differed across the TOMM trials, with 82.8% passing e10, 88.6% Trial 1, and 92.5% Trial 2. When dichotomized by a median split, passing rates across all TOMM trials were significantly different (p ≤ .001) for MMSE scores, education, and age with the largest discrepancy (~ 21%) observed on TOMMe10. IRT confirmed that all TOMM items are easy to answer correctly with Trial 2 items being appreciably easier (difficulty range = − 4.90 to − 1.52) than Trial 1 items (difficulty range = − 6.22 to − 3.50). Age, education, MMSE, and HVLT-R scores all were significantly related to latent trait scores on the TOMM (p < .001). Utilization of the TOMM in Spanish-speaking individuals is warranted, but with caution. The TOMMe10 yielded higher rates of invalid classification when compared to Trial 1 or Trial 2. IRT methods allow examination of whether traditional TOMM trial cut-offs may be appropriate when individuals present with advanced age or low educational attainment.

Objective: Performance validity testing is an increasingly vital component of neuropsychological evaluation, though administration of stand-alone performance validity tests (PVTs) can be time-consuming. As the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is among the most commonly used and researched PVTs, much work has focused on creating abbreviated versions while preserving diagnostic accuracy. A recent addition to this effort, errors on the first 10 items of Trial 1 (TOMMe10), was analyzed for its utility in predicting TOMM performance. Method: Subjects were 180 veterans seen on a long-term epilepsy monitoring unit. TOMM learning trials, Word Memory Test (WMT), and WAIS-IV Digit Span (for Reliable Digit Span; RDS) were administered as part of a larger battery. Performance invalidity was classified using established cut scores. Diagnostic classification statistics were calculated predicting TOMM, WMT, and RDS performance, including sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and positive and negative predictive values for multiple TOMMe10 cut scores. Results: A cut score of ≥2 errors on TOMMe10 yielded the highest sensitivity (.88) while maintaining ≥.90 specificity when predicting TOMM (also supported by ROC analysis). This cut score was also optimal when validated against combinations of PVTs (e.g. two of TOMM, WMT, and RDS; WMT and/or RDS). Conclusions: TOMMe10 shows great promise in predicting future TOMM performance. In settings where time with patients is at a premium, ≥2 errors on TOMMe10 may be used as an early TOMM discontinue criteria, allowing examiners to use their limited time more effectively. The use of TOMMe10 in settings with varying TOMM failure base rates was discussed.

Derivation and Clinical Validation of Consistency Indices on the Test of Memory Malingering

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Cognitive efforts tests, such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), are widely used internationally, yet emerging research suggests that performance on the TOMM can be affected by culture and education. This study examined the specificity of the TOMM and performance differences among Colombian adults, contrasting those with varying levels of literacy in order to evaluate the impact of these variables on error rates. It was hypothesized that literacy would be positively correlated with TOMM scores.Method: The sample consisted of 256 participants: the Absolute Illiterate participants had no formal education and no ability to read or write (n = 58), Functional Illiterate participants had no formal education and only basic reading and writing skills (n = 66), Literate participants had up to 12-years of education (n = 66), and Highly Literate participants had some post-secondary education (n = 66). Group differences for Trial 1 (T1) and Trial 2 (T2) were analyzed using ANOVAs and chi-square tests, along with post-hoc comparisons.Results: Mean T2 scores for the four groups were all above the suggested cutoff score of 45: the Highly Literate group had the highest mean score (49.3, range 41 to 50), and the Absolute Illiterate group had the lowest mean score (45.5, range 30 to 50). The Absolute and Functional Illiterate groups performed significantly worse on the TOMM trials than the literate participants. Cognitive performance as measured by indicators of verbal fluency and executive control significantly correlated with TOMM performance. However, when evaluated together in hierarchical logistic regressions, only age and literacy significantly predicted TOMM scores.Conclusions: Although the performance of Colombian adults suggests that the TOMM can be used cross-culturally with literate individuals, Colombian adults with poorer literacy skills performed significantly worse, raising concerns regarding the use of this measure with educationally-diverse samples. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

Retrospective Analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering in a Low Intellectual Quotient Intractable Epilepsy Sample.

Objective:The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is a performance validity test (PVT) that aims to assess whether participants are giving adequate effort to perform well on tasks of memory performance (Tombaugh, 1996). Other PVTs, specifically the Forced Choice Recognition Trial in the California Verbal Learning Test, have shown that even single errors may indicate invalid performance (Erdodi et al., 2018). Finally, youth are often understudied in the PVT literature, and athletes are at increased risk of invalid performance on baseline testing due to many wanting to return to play following concussion (Erdal, 2012). Therefore, the objective of the current study is to examine whether single errors on TOMM Trial 1 are indicative of lower, and possibly invalid, cognitive performance in a youth sample, given that cognitive performance declines with even small decreases in effort (Green, 2007).Participants and Methods:Healthy youth athletes (n=174) aged 8-16 years (M=12.07) completed the TOMM as well as other neuropsychological measures during baseline neuropsychological evaluation in a clinical research program for sports concussion. Independent samples t-tests compared youth athletes who scored 49 points on the TOMM (n=28) to youth athletes who scored a perfect 50 (n=50) across several groupings of neuropsychological measures. Participants who scored less than 49 or who didn’t complete the TOMM were excluded from the analyses.Results:Participants scoring 50/50 on TOMM Trial 1 scored significantly higher on Stroop Color Naming task (p=0.036), Verbal Learning Delayed task from the second edition of the Wide Range Assessment of Learning and Memory (WRAML-2, p=0.018), and Letter Number Sequencing task from the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV, p=0.025), relative to participants scoring 49/50. Though not statistically significant, results also showed a trend toward participants scoring 50/50 scoring higher on nearly every test in the battery.Conclusions:Participants with a single error on TOMM Trial 1, as compared to participants with a perfect score, performed significantly worse on a processing speed task, a verbal learning task, and a working memory task as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. The single-error group also trended toward scoring lower on nearly all of the remaining attention, processing speed, perceptual ability, memory, and executive functioning tasks in the battery. The results could lead to a more liberal interpretation of TOMM scores, given that the trend towards lower performance may be due to putting forth significantly less effort. These results point to the need for a similar comparison of the TOMM in a larger sample size, as greater power may reveal even more significant differences in performance. Findings also emphasize the importance of viewing performance validity on a continuum rather than as a dichotomous pass/fail. Understanding the TOMM and how single errors may be indicative of poorer performance in a youth sample could help to reframe the way PVT results are interpreted in clinical and forensic settings.

Growing concerns with suboptimal effort in pediatric populations have led clinicians to investigate the utility of symptom validity tests (SVT) among children and adolescents. Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was analyzed among a clinical sample of individuals ranging in age from 5 through 16 years. The 101 patients were referred for a variety of learning, developmental, psychiatric, and neurological concerns. All children were administered the TOMM as part of a clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Within the sample, 4 patients did not meet the adult cutoff criteria for passing the TOMM. Three of the 4 patients also demonstrated suboptimal effort on another SVT. Results revealed statistically significant correlations between TOMM performance and age, intelligence, and memory. Despite these correlations, 97 out of the 101 performed at or above the adult cutoff score. The findings suggest that children perform similarly to adults on the TOMM and that the TOMM is appropriate for use with pediatric clinical populations as young as 5 years.

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is an instrument used to assess purposeful embellishment or fabrication of memory difficulties for personal gain. Although the TOMM can be use in non-English speaking cultures, it has not been validated in Spanish-speaking Central and South American contexts. To generate normative data on TOMM across 7 countries in Latin America, with country-specific adjustments for gender, age, and education, where appropriate. The sample consisted of 2,266 healthy adults who were recruited from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Puerto Rico. Each subject was administered the TOMM as part of a larger neuropsychological battery. A standardized five-step statistical procedure was used to generate the norms. t-tests did not show significant differences in TOMM performance between men and women in any countries of the TOMM Trial 1 or 2. As a result, gender-adjusted norms were not generated. The results from this study will have a large impact on the practice of neuropsychology in Latin America, as this is the first normative multicenter study to create norms for the TOMM in this global region.

Using a sample of 72 university students, we determined whether administering the Boston Naming Test (BNT) before the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) affects scores on the latter test and whether administration of a visual test during the interval between TOMM Trial 2 and the TOMM Retention Trial (TOMM-R) influences results on TOMM-R. Four orders of administration were used. A series of nonparametric tests indicated that when the BNT was given before the TOMM, a lower median TOMM Trial 1 (TOMM-1) score emerged. However, of the 36 participants who completed the BNT prior to administration of the TOMM, only one achieved a score < 45 on TOMM-1. There were no other significant findings. Overall, the results suggest that order of test administration is probably not a determinant of TOMM scores.

Depression and the Test of Memory Malingering

Performance of forensic and non-forensic adult psychiatric inpatients on the Test of Memory Malingering

Depression and the Test of Memory Malingering

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is a method of identifying patients who may be exerting poor effort during neuropsychological testing. This study seeks to examine whether TOMM Trial 1 scores are useful in identifying patients whose overall TOMM performance does not indicate obvious poor effort. Hit rates of adequate performance on Trial 2 and the Retention Trial were calculated based on a fixed criterion of 45 or greater on Trial 1. Archival data were collected from a sample of 77 mild traumatic brain injured litigants and compared to each clinical sample described in the TOMM test manual (Tombaugh, 1996). Results show a hit rate of 100% for each group. Findings reveal that adequate Trial 1 scores predict adequate Trial 2 and Retention Trial scores, suggesting that patients scoring 45 or greater on Trial 1 are not likely to be suspected of poor effort based on overall TOMM performance.

Current standards of practice in neuropsychology advocate for including validity tests (PVTs). Abbreviating PVTs, such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), may help reduce overall evaluation time while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. TOMM Trial 1 performance (T1), as well as the number of errors within the first 10 items of Trial 1 (TOMMe10), have shown initial promise as abbreviated PVTs but require additional external cross-validation. This study sought to replicate findings from other mixed, diverse, clinical samples and provide further validation of abbreviated administrations of the TOMM. Data included 120 veterans who completed the TOMM and 3 criterion PVTs during clinical evaluation. In total, performance from 68% of the sample was classified as valid (52% met criteria for cognitive impairment), and performance from 32% of the sample was invalid. Group differences, diagnostic accuracy statistics, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed for relevant TOMM indices. There were large (η²p= .45-.66), significant differences between validity groups (p < .001) on TOMM T1 and TOMMe10, with lower TOMM T1 and higher TOMMe10 scores for participants with invalid performance. Using established cut-scores, sensitivities/specificities were: TOMMe10 ≥1 error: .84/.66; ≥2 errors: .74/.93; TOMM T1 ≤40: .82/.93. ROC curve analysis yielded significant areas under the curve for both TOMMe10 and T1 with respective optimal cut-scores of ≥2 errors (.74 sensitivity/.93 specificity) and ≤41 (.84 sensitivity/.91 specificity). TOMMe10 and T1 performances are minimally impacted by cognitive impairment. Although both evidenced robust psychometric properties, TOMM T1 continued to show greater accuracy than TOMMe10. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).