Use of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a criminal court forensic assessment setting was examined. Results indicated that those initially suspected of cognitive malingering and, thus, administered the TOMM, differed from others in this setting in ways that are consistent with descriptions of suspected cognitive malingerers in the existing literature. These defendants’TOMMscores were also consistent with those reported in samples characterized by relatively high base rates of cognitive malingering. Defendants whose TOMMscores met the recommended criteria for detecting malingering (n = 29) were more likely to report a previous head injury, to be viewed as only marginally cooperative or uncooperative during the course of the evaluation, and to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder than those who did not generate suspicious TOMM scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
2.
Bash, I. Y., & Alpert, M. (1980). The determination of malingering . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 347, 86-99 .
3.
Beetar, J. T.,& Williams, J. N. (1995). Malingering response styles on the memory assessment scales and symptom validity tests . Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 57-72 .
4.
Boardman, A. F. (1996). A comparative investigation of insanity acquittees and unsuccessful insanity evaluatees . Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56(12B), 7038-7038 .
5.
Cercey, S. P., Schretlen, D. J.,& Brandt, J. (1997). Simulated amnesia and the pseudo-memory phenomena. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception(2nd ed., pp. 85-107). New York: Guilford .
6.
Colby, F. (2001a). Using the binomial distribution to assess effort: Forced-choice testing in neuropsychological settings . Neuro-Rehabili tation, 16, 253-265 .
7.
Colby, F. (2001b). Using the binomial distribution to assess effort: Forced-choice testing in neuropsychological settings: Reply . Neuro-Rehabili tation, 16, 311-312 .
8.
Frederick, R.I. (2001). Comment on Faulder Colby “Using the binomial distribution to assess effort: Forced-choice testing in neuropsychological settings.” NeuroRehabilitation, 16, 309-309 .
9.
Frederick, R. I., & Foster, H. G. (1991). Multiple measures of malingering on a forced-choice test of cognitive ability . Psychological Assessment: AJournal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 3, 596-602 .
10.
Greiffenstein, M. F., Gola, T., & Baker, W. J. (1995). MMPI-2 validity scales versus domain specific measures in detection of factitious traumatic brain injury . Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9(3), 230-240 .
11.
Hartlage, L. C. (1998). Clinical detection of malingering. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation(pp. 239-260). New York: Plenum .
12.
Lamb, D. G.,& Prigatano, G. P. (2000). Malingering and feigned memory disorders. In G. E. Berrios & J. R. Hodges (Eds.), Memory Disorders in Psychiatric Practice(pp. 456-478). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
13.
Lambert, J. B. (2000). Analysis of the Rey 15-Item Memory Test as a measure of malingering in a litigating, mildly brain-injured sample . Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(8B), 4231-4231 .
14.
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press .
15.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts(2nd ed.). NewYork: Guilford .
16.
Mossman, D. (2003). Daubert, cognitive malingering, and test accuracy . Law and Human Behavior, 27(3), 229-249 .
17.
Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., & Boulay, L. (2001). Depression and the Test of Memory Malingering . Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 501-506 .
18.
Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., Gansler, D. A.,& Moczynski, N. P. (1998). Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) . Psychological Assessment, 10, 10-20 .
19.
Reynolds, C. (1998). Detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Plenum .
20.
Rogers, R. (1986). Conducting insanity evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold .
21.
Rogers, R. (1997). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford .
22.
Rogers, R. (1998). Assessment of malingering on psychological measures. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill, III (Eds.), Psychologists’desk reference(pp. 53-57). New York: Oxford University Press .
23.
Rogers, R.,& Bender, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of malingering and deception. In A. M. Goldstein & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology(Vol. 11, pp. 109-129). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley .
24.
Rogers, R., Harrell, E. H., & Liff, C. D. (1993). Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations . Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 255-274 .
25.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W.,& Goldstein, A. (1994). Explanatory models of malingering: A prototypical analysis . Law and Human Behavior, 18, 543-552 .
26.
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations. New York: Guilford .
27.
Smith, G., & Haley, J. A. (1998, Spring). Test of Memory Malingering [test review] . American Psychology-Law Society News, 16, 29-30 .
28.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, A. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York: Oxford University Press .
29.
Tan, J. E., Slick, D. J., Strauss, E.,& Hultsch, D. F. (2002). How’d they do it? Malingering strategies on symptom validity tests . Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16(4), 495-505 .
30.
Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). New York: Multi-Health Systems .
31.
Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals . Psychological Assessment, 9, 260-268 .
32.
Tombaugh, T. N. (2002). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in forensic psychology . Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 2(3-4), 69-96 .
33.
Vallabhajosula, B.,& van Gorp, W. G. (2001). Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits . Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 207-215 .
34.
Villanueva, M., & Binder, L. (1993). Association between MMPI-2 validity indices and the Portland Digit Recognition Test . Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 106-106 .
35.
Zillmer, E. A., & Perry, W. (1996). Cognitive-neuropsychological abilities and related psychological disturbance: A factor model of neuropsychological, Rorschach, and MMPI indices . Assessment, 3, 209-224 .
