What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the performance of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) across telehealth and in-office settings.

May 27, 2026

Acceptable psychometric equivalence of the test of memory malingering across in-office and telehealth administration: A retrospective comparative study

Puntos clave

This study aims to compare the performance of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) across telehealth and in-office settings.
Retrospective analysis of 940 adults (18-84 years) who completed the TOMM in-office (n=517) or via telehealth (n=423).
Primary measure included Trial 2 scores, with a standard failure threshold of below 45.
Performance validity was assessed through score comparisons, reliability, and relationships with depression, anxiety, and cognitive ability.
Trial 2 scores did not significantly differ between groups (d = .08, p = .237).
Pass/fail classification rates were comparable: 8.5% (in-office) vs. 10.8% (telehealth).
Inter-trial reliability was good to excellent (α = .77-.88), and relationships with cognitive measures were consistent across both modalities.

Resumen

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is among the most widely used performance validity tests in neuropsychological assessment; however, its psychometric properties have not been formally validated for telehealth administration. This study aimed to compare TOMM performance when administered in-office and via telehealth. This retrospective study included 940 adults aged 18-84 years who completed the TOMM as part of routine neuropsychological or psychological evaluation, either in-office (n = 517) or via telehealth (n = 423). Trial 2 served as the primary performance validity indicator, with a score below 45 constituting the standard failure threshold. Equivalence was operationalized using a convergent criterion approach encompassing group differences in trial scores, pass/fail classification rates, inter-trial reliability, distributional properties, and consistency of relationships with depression, anxiety, and cognitive ability. Results demonstrated acceptable equivalence and comparable performance across modalities. Trial 2 scores did not differ significantly between groups (d = .08), and pass/fail classification rates were comparable (8.5% vs. 10.8%, p = .237). Inter-trial reliability was good to excellent across both modalities (α = .77-.88), and distributional properties were similar. Trial 1 differences (d = .20) dissipated by Trial 2, suggesting clinically inconsequential modality effects. Relationships with depression, anxiety, and cognitive ability were consistent across groups. These findings support use of standard TOMM cutoff criteria in examiner-controlled telehealth evaluations and provide empirical justification for remote performance validity assessment when appropriate procedural safeguards are maintained. Limitations include the retrospective design, potential sampling differences between modality groups, and restriction to examiner-controlled administrations.

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar