TOMM Trial 1 as a performance validity indicator in a criminal forensic sample

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 (TOMM1) as a freestanding Performance Validity Test (PVT) as compared to the full TOMM in a criminal forensic sample.Method: Participants included 119 evaluees in a Midwestern forensic hospital. Criterion groups were formed based on passing/failing scores on other freestanding PVTs. This resulted in three groups: +MND (Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction), who failed two or more freestanding PVTs; possible MND (pMND), who failed one freestanding PVT; and –MND, who failed no other freestanding PVTs. All three groups were compared initially, but only +MND and –MND groups were retained for final analyses. TOMM1 performance was compared to standard TOMM performance using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses.Results: TOMM1 was highly predictive of the standard TOMM decision rules (AUC = .92). Overall accuracy rate for TOMM1 predicting failure on 2 PVTs was quite robust as well (AUC = .80), and TOMM1 ≤ 39 provided acceptable diagnostic statistics (Sensitivity = .68, Specificity = .89). These results were essentially no different from the standard TOMM accuracy statistics. In addition, by adjusting for those strongly suspected of being inaccurately placed into the ?MND group (e.g. false negatives), TOMM1 diagnostics slightly improved (AUC = .84) at a TOMM1 ≤ 40 (sensitivity = .71, specificity = .94).Conclusions: Results support use of TOMM1 in a criminal forensic setting where accuracy, shorter evaluation times, and more efficient use of resources are often critical in informing legal decision-making.     

Strategies of successful and unsuccessful simulators coached to feign traumatic brain injury*

Objective: The present study evaluated strategies used by healthy adults coached to simulate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during neuropsychological evaluation. Method: Healthy adults (n = 58) were coached to simulate TBI while completing a test battery consisting of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs), neuropsychological tests, a self-report scale of functional independence, and a debriefing survey about strategies used to feign TBI. Results: “Successful” simulators (n = 16) were classified as participants who failed 0 or 1 PVT and also scored as impaired on one or more neuropsychological index. “Unsuccessful” simulators (n = 42) failed ≥2 PVTs or passed PVTs but did not score impaired on any neuropsychological index. Compared to unsuccessful simulators, successful simulators had significantly more years of education, higher estimated IQ, and were more likely to use information provided about TBI to employ a systematic pattern of performance that targeted specific tests rather than performing poorly across the entire test battery. Conclusion: Results contribute to a limited body of research investigating strategies utilized by individuals instructed to feign neurocognitive impairment. Findings signal the importance of developing additional embedded PVTs within standard cognitive tests to assess performance validity throughout a neuropsychological assessment. Future research should consider specifically targeting embedded measures in visual tests sensitive to slowed responding (e.g. response time).     

Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering is predicted by the number of errors on its first 10 items on an inpatient epilepsy monitoring unit

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.     

Not all performance validity tests are created equal: The role of recollection and familiarity in the Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test

Introduction: 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.     

Performance validity in older adults: Observed versus predicted false positive rates in relation to number of tests administered

Introduction: This study examined false positive rates on embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) in older adults grouped by cognitive status.

Method: The research design involved secondary analysis of data from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center database. Participants (N = 22,688) were grouped by cognitive status: normal (n = 10,319), impaired (n = 1,194), amnestic or nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 5,414), and dementia (n = 5,761). Neuropsychological data were used to derive 5 PVTs.

Results: False positive rates on individual PVTs ranged from 3.3 to 26.3% with several embedded PVTs showing acceptable specificity across groups. The proportion of participants failing two or more PVTs varied by cognitive status: normal (1.9%), impaired (6.6%), MCI (13.2%), and dementia (52.8%). Comparison of observed and predicted false positive rates at different specificity levels (.85 or .90) demonstrated significant differences in all comparisons. In normal and impaired groups, predicted rates were higher than observed rates. In the MCI group, predicted and observed comparisons varied: Predicted rates were higher with specificity at .85 and lower with specificity at .90. In the dementia group, predicted rates underestimated observed rates.

Conclusions: Despite elevated false positives in conditions involving severe cognitive compromise, several measures retain acceptable specificity regardless of cognitive status. Predicted false positive rates based on the number of PVTs administered were not observed empirically. These findings do not support the utility of simulated data in predicting false positive rates in older adults.     

Performance validity testing in a clinical sample of adults with sickle cell disease

Objective: Neuropsychologists utilize performance validity tests (PVTs) as objective means for drawing inferences about performance validity. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is a well-validated, stand-alone PVT and the Reliable Digit Span (RDS) and Reliable Digit Span-Revised (RDS-R) from the Digit Span subtest of the WAIS-IV are commonly employed, embedded PVTs. While research has demonstrated the utility of these PVTs with various clinical samples, no research has investigated their use in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), a condition associated with multiple neurological, physical, and psychiatric symptoms. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore PVT performance in adults with SCD. Method: Fifty-four adults with SCD (M_age = 40.61, SD = 12.35) were consecutively referred by their hematologist for a routine clinical outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. During the evaluation, participants were administered the TOMM (Trials 1 and 2), neuropsychological measures including the WAIS-IV Digit Span subtest, and mood and behavioral questionnaires. Results: The average score on the TOMM was 47.70 (SD = 3.47, range = 34–50) for Trial 1 and 49.69 (SD = 1.66, range = 38–50) for Trial 2. Only one participant failed Trial 2 of the TOMM, yielding a 98.1% pass rate for the sample. Pass rates at various RDS and RDS-R values were calculated with TOMM Trial 2 performance as an external criterion. Conclusions: Results support the use of the TOMM as a measure of performance validity for individuals with SCD, while RDS and RDS-R should be interpreted with caution in this population.     

How'd they do it? Malingering strategies on symptom validity tests

Twenty-five undergraduate students were instructed to feign believable impairment following a brain injury from a car accident and 27 students were told to perform like they had recovered from such an injury. Three forced-choice tests, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), and Word Memory Test (WMT) were given. Test-taking strategies were evaluated by means of a questionnaire given at the end of the test session. The results revealed that all the tasks differentiated between groups. Using conventional cut-scores, the WMT proved most efficient while the VSVT captured the most participants in the definitive below-chance category. Individuals instructed to feign injury were more likely to prepare prior to the experiment, with feigning of memory loss as the most frequently reported strategy. Regardless, preparation effort did not translate into believable performance on the tests.     

Clinical utility of the Rey 15-Item Test,recognition trial,and error scores for detecting noncredible neuropsychological performance in a mixed clinical sample of veterans

Objective: This cross-sectional study examined the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT), Recognition Trial, and Error Scores for identifying noncredible performance in a mixed clinical veteran sample compared to another widely used validity measure, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Method: Sixty-two veterans who completed the RFIT (Recall/Recognition Trials), TOMM, and Word Memory Test (WMT) during clinical evaluation were included. Using the WMT as the criterion, 71% (N = 44) were classified as valid and 29% (N = 18) as invalid. Results: Among valid participants, 25% failed the RFIT Recall, whereas 78% of invalid participants passed (sensitivity: 22%; specificity: 75%; diagnostic odds ratio [DOR]: .86). The Recognition Trial increased sensitivity to 39% for identifying invalid performance, but 25% of valid participants still scored below cut-off (specificity: 75%; DOR: 1.91). RFIT Recall and Recognition Trial logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were nonsignificant, with respective classification accuracies of 71 and 72.6% and areas under the curve (AUCs) of .52 and .55. RFIT Error Scores also failed to differentiate validity groups. In contrast, TOMM had stronger psychometric properties (sensitivity: 50%; specificity: 97.7%; DOR: 43; classification accuracy: 82.3%; AUC: .91). Moreover, RFIT Recall and Recognition failure rates were 14 and 22% greater, respectively, among those with cognitive impairment, whereas 95% of those with impairment and 100% without passed the TOMM. Conclusion: Despite frequent use among VA neuropsychologists, the RFIT displayed limited ability to detect noncredible performance and misclassified a large percentage of valid participants in this mixed clinical veteran sample, suggesting limited utility with this population.     

Neuropsychological Test Performance of Successful Brain Injury Simulators

This study provided an examination of the performance characteristics of successful brain injury simulators (SBIS). Coached (n = 56) and uncoached (n = 35) brain injury simulators received instructions to fake cognitive impairment; controls were asked to do their best. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was administered along with standard neuropsychological measures (e.g., Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). The TOMM identified 80% of uncoached and 60% of coached brain injury simulators. SBIS were participants from the brain injury simulation groups whose TOMM performance indicated adequate effort. A total of 32% of all brain injury simulators scored above the TOMM cutoff scores for adequate effort (the SBIS group). Significantly more coached than uncoached participants composed the SBIS group (76% vs. 24%, respectively). SBIS performed significantly worse than controls and significantly better than unsuccessful brain injury simulators on select standard neuropsychological measures. The SBIS scores were lowered compared to controls; in some instances this lowered performance was at a clinically relevant level.     

The Dot Counting Test adds up: Validation and response pattern analysis in a mixed clinical veteran sample

Objective: This study cross-validated the Dot Counting Test (DCT) as a performance validity test (PVT) among a mixed clinical veteran sample. Completion time and error patterns also were examined by validity group and cognitive impairment status.

Method: This cross-sectional study included 77 veterans who completed the DCT during clinical evaluation. Seventy-four percent (N = 57) were classified as valid and 26% as noncredible (N = 20) via the Word Memory Test (WMT) and Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Among valid participants, 47% (N = 27) were cognitively impaired, and 53% (N = 30) were unimpaired.

Results: DCT performance was not significantly associated with age, education, or bilingualism. Seventy-five percent of the overall sample committed at least one error across the 12 stimulus cards; however, valid participants had a 27% higher rate of 0 errors, while noncredible participants had a 35% higher rate of ≥4 errors. Overall, noncredible individuals had significantly longer completion times, more errors, and higher E-scores. Conversely, those with cognitive impairment had longer completion times, but comparable errors to their unimpaired counterparts. Finally, DCT E-scores significantly predicted group membership with 83.1% classification accuracy and an area under the curve of .87 for identifying invalid performance. The optimal cut-score of 15 was associated with 70% sensitivity and 88% specificity.

Conclusion: The DCT demonstrated good classification accuracy and sensitivity/specificity for identifying noncredible performance in this mixed clinical veteran sample, suggesting utility as a non-memory-based PVT with this population. Moreover, cognitive impairment significantly contributed to slower completion times, but not reduced accuracy.     

Utility of various WAIS-IV Digit Span indices for identifying noncredible performance validity among cognitively impaired and unimpaired examinees

Objective: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) Reliable Digit Span (RDS), RDS-revised (RDS-R), and age-corrected scaled score (ACSS) are validated and commonly used embedded performance validity tests (PVTs), though existing validation studies have largely examined younger (approximate ages 19–35) patients with mild traumatic brain injury or those without cognitive impairment. This study compared the classification accuracy of RDS, RDS-R, and ACSS in a mixed clinical sample of relatively older (M age = 54.61) veterans with and without neurocognitive impairment. Method: During a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation, 113 clinically-referred veterans completed the WAIS-IV Digit Span subtest and the following criterion PVTs: Dot Counting Test, Word Choice Test, and Test of Memory Malingering. Those with ≤1 criterion PVT failure were classified as valid (n = 87), whereas those with ≥2 failures were classified as noncredible (n = 26). Among valid participants, 49% were cognitively impaired. Results: RDS, RDS-R, and ACSS all significantly predicted validity group membership with respective areas under the curve (AUCs) of .79, .81, and .85, and optimal cut scores of RDS ≤ 5, RDS-R ≤ 9, and ACSS ≤ 5. Lower accuracy and AUCs were observed for the valid-cognitively impaired subsample across indices, but to a greater degree for traditional RDS. ACSS evidenced maximal sensitivity/specificity for the total sample (≤5; .62/.87), cognitively unimpaired subsample (≤5; .62/.95), and cognitively impaired subsample (≤4; .39/.86). Conclusions: ACSS yielded better classification accuracy and sensitivity/specificity than RDS and RDS-R. While all three indices have utility as embedded PVTs, ACSS ≤ 5 may be most robust to cognitive impairment while identifying noncredible performance.     

Performance validity in undergraduate research participants: a comparison of failure rates across tests and cutoffs

Objective: This study compared failure rates on performance validity tests (PVTs) across liberal and conservative cutoffs in a sample of undergraduate students participating in academic research.Method: Participants (n = 120) were administered four free-standing PVTs (Test of Memory Malingering, Word Memory Test, Rey 15-Item Test, Hiscock Forced-Choice Procedure) and three embedded PVTs (Digit Span, letter and category fluency). Participants also reported their perceived level of effort during testing.Results: At liberal cutoffs, 36.7% of the sample failed ≥1 PVTs, 6.7% failed ≥2, and .8% failed 3. At conservative cutoffs, 18.3% of the sample failed ≥1 PVTs, 2.5% failed ≥2, and .8% failed 3. Participants were 3 to 5 times more likely to fail embedded (15.8–30.8%) compared to free-standing PVTs (3.3–10.0%). There was no significant difference in failure rates between native and non-native English speaking participants at either liberal or conservative cutoffs. Additionally, there was no relation between self-reported effort and PVT failure rates.Conclusions: Although PVT failure rates varied as a function of PVTs and cutoffs, between a third and a fifth of the sample failed ≥1 PVTs, consistent with high initial estimates of invalid performance in this population. Embedded PVTs had notably higher failure rates than free-standing PVTs. Assuming optimal effort in research using students as participants without a formal assessment of performance validity introduces a potentially significant confound in the study design.     

Clinical utility of the memory complaints inventory to detect invalid test performance

Objective: This investigation was designed to examine the classification statistics of Memory Complaints Inventory (MCI) scores relative to the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and the Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT), as well as various validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form(MMPI-2-RF). Method: The sample consisted of 339 active duty service members with a history of concussion who completed performance validity tests (PVTs), symptom validity tests (SVTs), and the MCI. Results: Those who failed the MSVT and NV-MSVT had significantly higher scores across all MCI scales. In addition, those who scored above specified cut scores on the evaluated PAI and MMPI-2-RF validity scales also had significantly higher MCI scale scores. Receiver operator characteristics analysis demonstrated acceptable area under the curve (AUC) across the evaluated SVTs for the mean of all MCI subtests with values ranging from (.77 to .86), with comparable findings for PVTs (MSVT AUC = .75; NV-MSVT AUC = .72). Conclusions: In general the MCI scales demonstrated better classification statistics relative to SVTs vs. PVTs, which is consistent with the nature of the MCI as a self-report instrument.     

Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Scores are not Affected by Chronic Pain or Depression in Patients with Fibromyalgia

Neuropsychologists routinely give effort tests, such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). When a person fails one of these tests, the clinician must try to determine whether the poor performance was due to suboptimal effort or to chronic pain, depression, or other problems. Participants were 54 community-dwelling patients who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia (FM). In addition to the TOMM, they completed the Beck Depression Inventory–Second Edition, Multidimensional Pain Inventory–Version 1, Oswestry Disability Index–2.0, British Columbia Cognitive Complaints Inventory, and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. The majority endorsed at least mild levels of depressive symptoms (72%), and 22% endorsed “severe” levels of depression. The average scores on the TOMM were 48.8 (SD = 1.9, range = 40–50) for Trial 1, 49.8 (SD = 0.5, range = 48–50) for Trial 2, and 49.6 (SD = 0.9, range = 45–50) for Retention. Despite relatively high levels of self-reported depression, chronic pain, and disability, not a single patient failed the TOMM. In this study, the TOMM was not affected by chronic pain, depression, or both.     

Exploring the sensitivity of the Personality Assessment Inventory symptom validity tests in detecting response bias in a mixed neuropsychological outpatient sample

Objective: Few studies have evaluated the symptom validity tests (SVTs) within the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in a neuropsychological assessment context. Accordingly, the present study explored the accuracy of PAI SVTs in identifying exaggerated cognitive dysfunction in a mixed sample of outpatients referred for neuropsychological assessment. Method: Participants who failed two or more Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) were classified as having exaggerated cognitive dysfunction (n = 49). Their responses on PAI SVTs were compared to examinees who did not fail PVTs (n = 257). Results: Multivariate analysis of variance indicated the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale most strongly discriminated between those with exaggerated cognitive dysfunction from honest responders (Cohen’s d = .58). Nonetheless, its classification accuracy was low (area under the curve [AUC] = .65). A k-means cluster analysis and a subsequent multinomial logistic regression indicated evidence for two distinct groups of exaggerators. In particular, one group seemed to exaggerate symptoms, whereas another presented in a defensive manner, implying that individuals with positive and NIM biases on the PAI were apt to display invalid performance on PVTs. Conclusions: Findings indicated that exaggerated cognitive dysfunction tends to be present when NIM is very high and that evidence exists for a defensive response style on the PAI in the context of PVT failure.     

Embedded performance validity tests within the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised

Objective: Various research studies and neuropsychology practice organizations have reiterated the importance of developing embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) to detect potentially invalid neurocognitive test data. This study investigated whether measures within the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised (HVLT-R) and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised (BVMT-R) could accurately classify individuals who fail two or more PVTs during routine clinical assessment.Method: The present sample of 109 United States military veterans (Mean age = 52.4, SD = 13.3), all consisted of clinically referred patients and received a battery of neuropsychological tests. Based on performance validity findings, veterans were assigned to valid (n = 86) or invalid (n = 23) groups. Of the 109 patients in the overall sample, 77 were administered the HLVT-R and 75 were administered the BVMT-R, which were examined for classification accuracy.Results: The HVLT-R Recognition Discrimination Index and the BVMT-R Retention Percentage showed good to adequate discrimination with an area under the curve of .78 and .70, respectively. The HVLT-R Recognition Discrimination Index showed sensitivity of .53 with specificity of .93. The BVMT-R Retention Percentage demonstrated sensitivity of .31 with specificity of .92.Conclusions: When used in conjunction with other PVTs, these new embedded PVTs may be effective in the detection of invalid test data, although they are not intended for use in patients with dementia.     

Cardiovascular fitness is improved post-stroke with upper-limb Wii-based Movement Therapy but not dose-matched constraint therapy

Introduction: Post-stroke cardiovascular fitness is typically half that of healthy age-matched people. Cardiovascular deconditioning is a risk factor for recurrent stroke that may be overlooked during routine rehabilitation. This study investigated the cardiovascular responses of two upper limb rehabilitation protocols.

Methods: Forty-six stroke patients completed a dose-matched program of Wii-based Movement Therapy (WMT) or modified Constraint-induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT). Heart rate and stepping were recorded during early (day 2)- and late (day 12–14)-therapy. Pre- and post-therapy motor assessments included the Wolf Motor Function Test and 6-min walk.

Results: Upper limb motor function improved for both groups after therapy (WMT p = 0.003, mCIMT p = 0.04). Relative peak heart rate increased from early- to late-therapy WMT by 33% (p < 0.001) and heart rate recovery (HRR) time was 40% faster (p = 0.04). Peak heart rate was higher and HRR faster during mCIMT than WMT, but neither measure changed during mCIMT. Stepping increased by 88% during Wii-tennis (p < 0.001) and 21% during Wii-boxing (p = 0.045) while mCIMT activities were predominantly sedentary. Six-min walk distances increased by 8% (p = 0.001) and 4% (p = 0.02) for WMT and mCIMT, respectively.

Discussion: Cardiovascular benefits were evident after WMT as both a cardiovascular challenge and improved cardiovascular fitness. The peak heart rate gradient across WMT activities suggests this therapy can be further individualized to address cardiovascular needs. The mCIMT data suggest a cardiovascular stress response.

Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate a cardiovascular benefit during specifically targeted upper limb rehabilitation. Thus, WMT not only improves upper limb motor function but also improves cardiovascular fitness.     

Using the California Verbal Learning Test,Second Edition as an embedded performance validity measure among individuals with TBI and individuals with psychiatric disorders

Objective: Among embedded performance validity tests (PVTs), little research addresses the use of Total Hits and Total False Positives from the California Verbal Learning Test, Second Edition (CVLT-II) in spite of low sensitivity, particularly in psychiatric samples. Method: This study examined the classification accuracy of these two measures in individuals with psychiatric disorders or mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). These samples were separated into two groups using the criteria of passing all PVTs versus failing 2 or more PVTs. They were also compared to a criterion group of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (M-STBI) patients who passed all PVTs. The sample included 176 individuals consecutively referred for neuropsychological testing (mean age = 46.31, SD = 15.30; mean education = 13.07, SD = 2.50, 52.3% males; 91.2% Caucasian) who met study criteria. Results: For classification accuracy, Total Hits in the psychiatric group had excellent classification accuracy (Area Under the Curve [AUC] = .82; Sensitivity = .47; Specificity = .90), whereas Total False Positives (AUC = .49) demonstrated poor classification accuracy. The MTBI group had similar results, with Total Hits having excellent classification accuracy (AUC = .88; Sensitivity = .60; Specificity = .90), whereas Total False Positive (AUC = .62) did not. Conclusions: Results provide preliminary support for using Total Hits; however, Total False Positives were ineffective in identifying non-credible patients with psychiatric disorders or MTBI. Total Hits also compared favorably to other embedded CVLT measures.     

Differences in self-awareness of functional deficits between amnestic single- and multidomain mild cognitive impairment

Introduction: Prior research examining self-awareness of deficits in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been inconsistent, suggesting that preservation of insight at this disease stage may be conditional on the domain(s) examined as well as individual characteristics. The current study is the first to examine differences in objective performance and self-awareness of difficulties between older adults with amnestic single- (MCI–ASD) and multidomain MCI (MCI–AMD) across six instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs).

Method: Seventy-five individuals (M_age = 73.9 years, range = 55–88 years; 56% female) with MCI–ASD (n = 30) and MCI–AMD (n = 45) were recruited primarily from a hospital-based memory disorders clinic. Participants were administered self-report and objective measures assessing six functional domains: financial management, driving, telephone use, nutrition evaluation, grocery shopping, and medication management. Self-awareness discrepancy scores were calculated for each of these IADLs, and participants were classified as either “overestimating ability” or “accurately/underestimating ability.”

Results: Individuals with MCI–AMD performed significantly worse on objective measures of financial management, driving, and nutrition evaluation than those with MCI–ASD. Across MCI subtypes, participants were most likely to lack awareness of their difficulties in nutrition evaluation (31%), financial management (25%), and driving (23%) domains. Individuals with MCI–AMD were significantly more likely than those with MCI–ASD to overestimate performance on driving and telephone use domains.

Conclusion: Individuals with MCI–AMD are more likely than those with MCI–ASD to have impairment in their everyday function and to lack awareness into their IADL difficulties. When possible, clinicians should obtain objective measures in combination with detailed informant reports of functional abilities in order to evaluate capacity to independently engage in various daily activities. Finally, level of self-awareness varies across IADL domains, providing further evidence that insight is not a unitary construct.     

Prospects for faking believable memory deficits on neuropsychological tests and the use of incentives in simulation research

Abstract

The vulnerability of several neuropsychological memory tests – the Wechsler Memory Scale – Revised, Complex Figure Test, Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and Rey Memory Test – to faked deficits was evaluated. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Control (n=28), Malingering with a financial incentive (n=30), and Malingering without a financial incentive (n=28). Overall, the performance of the Malingering Groups was not significantly different from one another, but both groups were significantly poorer than Controls. Discriminant functions with a reduced set of predictors correctly classified about 75% of cases in both the Control and the combined Malingering Groups on cross-validation. The results suggest that neuropsychological memory tests are vulnerable to faked deficits, and that recognition tasks are disproportionately affected. The use of incentives in simulation research is also discussed.