This study used a known-groups design to determine the classification accuracy of the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996 Tombaugh, T. 1996. Test of Memory Malingering manual, New York: MultiHealth Systems. [Google Scholar], 1997 Tombaugh, T.N. 1997. The Test of Memory Malingering (ToMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9: 260–68. [CROSSREF][CSA][Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) in detecting cognitive malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Forty-one of 161 TBI patients met Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M.S. and Iverson, G.L. 1999. Diagnostic criteria for malingering neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13: 545–561. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA][Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction. Twenty-two no-incentive memory disorder patients were also included. The original cutoffs (<45) for Trial 2 and Retention demonstrated excellent specificity (less than a 5% false positive error rate) and impressive sensitivity (greater than 45%). However, these cutoffs are actually conservative in the context of mild TBI. Over 90% of the non-MND mild TBI sample scored 48 or higher on the Retention Trial and none scored less than 46 while 60% of the MND patients claiming mild TBI were detected at those levels. Trial 1 also demonstrated excellent classification accuracy. Application of these data to clinical practice is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greve et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: