This study examined the accuracy of two measures of cognitive effort and motivation, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) and the Validity Indicator Profile Verbal subtest (VIP-V; Frederick, 2003) using a simulation study design with psychiatric patients (n = 88) and community participants instructed to feign mental illness (n = 29). Little research has evaluated either the TOMM or the VIP in psychiatric patients, a group that may be at an increased risk of misclassification, despite the common use of these measures by forensic evaluators to assess for malingering. Specificity for the TOMM (94.2%) and the VIP-V (71.6%) were somewhat lower than the original validation samples, but Sensitivity rates were mixed: lower for the TOMM (62.1%) but higher for the VIP-V (73.1%). Additionally, VIP-V indicators were examined using Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) and stepwise discriminant analyses. The implications of these results for forensic assessment are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherR.P.Buffington-VollumJ.K.StrednyR.V.HandelW.2006. A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87: 84–94.
2.
AshendorfL.ConstantinouM.McCaffreyR.J.2004. The effect of depression and anxiety on the TOMM in community-dwelling older adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19: 125–130.
3.
BianchiK.J.MathiasC.W.GreveK.W.2001. Symptom validity testing: A critical review. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15: 19–5.
4.
BrennanA.M.GouvierW.D.2006. Are we honestly studying malingering? A profile and comparison of simulated and suspected malingerers. Applied Neuropsychology, 13: 1–11.
5.
ButcherJ.N.DahlstromW.G.GrahamJ.R.TellegnA.KaemmerB.1989. Manual for administration and scoring of the MMPI-2, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
6.
DuncanA.2005. The impact of cognitive and psychiatric impairment of psychotic disorders on the Test of Memory Malingering. Assessment, 12: 123–139.
FrederickR.I.CrosbyR.D.2000. Development and validation of the Validity Indicator Profile. Law and Human Behavior, 24: 59–82.
9.
FrederickR.I.CrosbyR.D.WynkoopT.E.2000. Performance curve classification of invalid responding on the Validity Indicator Profile. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15: 281–300.
10.
GierokS.D.DicksonA.L.ColeJ.A.2005. Performance of forensic and non-forensic adult psychiatric inpatients on the Test of Memory Malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20: 755–60.
11.
GreenD.RosenfeldB.DoleT.PivovarovaE.ZapfP.2008. Validation of an abbreviated version of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms across outpatient psychiatric and community samples. Law and Human Behavior, 32: 177–186.
12.
HeinzeM.C.PurishA.D.2001. Beneath the mask: Use of psychological tests to detect and subtype malingering in criminal defendants. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1: 23–52.
MittenbergW.PattonC.CanyockE.M.ConditD.C.2002. Base rate of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24: 1094–102.
15.
ReesL.M.TombaughT.N.BoulayL.2000. Depression and the Test of Memory malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16: 501–506.
16.
RogersR.BagbyR.M.DickensS.E.1992. Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
17.
RogersR.CruiseK.R.1998. Assessment of malingering with simulation designs: Threats to external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 22: 273–285.
18.
RogersR.HarrellE.H.LiffC.D.1993. Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations. Clinical Psychology Review, 13: 255–274.
19.
RogersR.SalekinR.T.SewellK.W.GoldsteinA.LeonardK.1998. A compariso of forensic and nonforensic malingerers: A prototypical analysis of explanatory models. Law and Human Behavior, 22: 353–367.
20.
RogersR.ShumanD.2005. “Malingering and deception in criminal evaluations”. In Fundamentals of forensic practice: mental health and criminal law, Edited by: RogersR.ShumanD.W.21–56. New York: Springer.
21.
RosenfeldB.2008. “Some say yes, some say no: Decision rules for integrating multiple measures of malingering”. In Malingering assessment in the 21st century: Expanding the boundaries Edited by: RosenfeldB.Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, Jacksonville, FL
22.
TeichnerG.WagnerM.T.2004. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact, cognitively impaired, and elderly patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19: 455–64.
23.
TombaughT.1996. TOMM: Test of Memory Malingering, Toronto, , Canada: Multi-Health Systems Incorporated.
24.
TombaughT.1997. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9: 260–268.
25.
VallabhajosulaB.van GorpW.G.2001. Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 29: 207–215.
26.
WeinbornM.OrrT.WoodsS.P.ConoverE.FeisJ.2003. A validation of the Test of Memory Malingering in a forensic psychiatric setting. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25: 979–90.
