• Title of article

    Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test: A new comparison of failure concordance rates

  • Author/Authors

    Manfred F. Greiffenstein، نويسنده , , Kevin W. Greve، نويسنده , , Kevin J. Bianchini، نويسنده , , W. John Baker، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2008
  • Pages
    7
  • From page
    801
  • To page
    807
  • Abstract
    Two commonly used symptom validity tests are the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Word Memory Test (WMT). After examining TOMM–WMT failure concordance rates, Green [Green, P. (2007). Making comparisons between forced-choice effort tests. In K. B. Boone (Ed.), Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment (pp. 50–77). New York: Guilford] urged widespread adoption of the WMT, arguing the TOMM is insensitive to feigned impairment. But Green (2007) used a skewed concordance method that favored WMT (one TOMM subtest vs. three WMT subtests). In the present study we compare pass/fail agreement rates with different combinations of TOMM and WMT subtests in 473 persons seeking compensation for predominately mild neurological trauma. We replicated Green (2007) using his asymmetrical method, but otherwise we found the WMT and TOMM produce comparable failure rates in samples at-risk for exaggeration with balanced comparison (three TOMM subtests vs. three WMT). Further work is necessary to compare WMT and TOMM specificities, as failure concordance designs establish reliability but are insufficient for proving validity.
  • Keywords
    Word memory test , Malingering , Postconcussion , Chronic pain , Validity testing , Test of Memory Malingering
  • Journal title
    Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
  • Serial Year
    2008
  • Journal title
    Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
  • Record number

    516992