Cross-validation of the Utility of Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Cut-offs in a Large Colombian Sample

被引:10
|
作者
Bailey, K. Chase [1 ]
Goatte, William [1 ]
Ramos-Usuga, Daniela [2 ,3 ]
Rivera, Diego [4 ]
Arango-Lasprilla, Juan Carlos [3 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] UT Southwestern Med Ctr, Div Psychiat, Dallas, TX USA
[2] Univ Basque Country UPV EHU, Biomed Res Doctorate Program, Leioa, Spain
[3] Biocruces Bizkaia Hlth Res Inst, Baracaldo, Spain
[4] Univ Publ Navarra, Dept Ciencias Salud, Pamplona, Spain
[5] IKERBASQUE Basque Fdn Sci, Bilbao, Spain
[6] Univ Basque Country UPV EHU, Dept Cell Biol & Histol, Leioa, Spain
来源
PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY & LAW | 2021年 / 14卷 / 02期
关键词
Performance validity; Neuropsychological evaluation; Multicultural; Psychometrics; Spanish; VERBAL-LEARNING TEST; AMERICAN IMMIGRATION; SPANISH POPULATION; NORMATIVE DATA; TRIAL; PERFORMANCE; VALIDITY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; ACCURACY; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1007/s12207-021-09407-z
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
This study sought to cross-validate the utility of Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) cut-offs derived in a large Colombian sample with further exploration of the impact of age, education, and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) scores on TOMM trials. To address these aims, the study examines concordance rates of the TOMM scores by demographics and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) test performance. Additionally, item response theory analysis (IRT) focused on the interaction between demographic variables and the psychometric properties of the TOMM items. Data were collected from 1416 healthy controls (58.6% female; M age = 58.19; M education = 9 years) who completed the TOMM, MMSE, and HVLT-R as part of a comprehensive battery conducted in Spanish. Frequency analysis was used to assess for concordance rates of passing TOMMe10, Trial 1, and Trial 2 scores, further broken down by median split for MMSE, education, and age. Additionally, IRT is used to examine, in detail, the psychometric properties of the TOMM items and relationships to demographic variables. Validity classification differed across the TOMM trials, with 82.8% passing e10, 88.6% Trial 1, and 92.5% Trial 2. When dichotomized by a median split, passing rates across all TOMM trials were significantly different (p <= .001) for MMSE scores, education, and age with the largest discrepancy (similar to 21%) observed on TOMMe10. IRT confirmed that all TOMM items are easy to answer correctly with Trial 2 items being appreciably easier (difficulty range = - 4.90 to - 1.52) than Trial 1 items (difficulty range = - 6.22 to - 3.50). Age, education, MMSE, and HVLT-R scores all were significantly related to latent trait scores on the TOMM (p < .001). Utilization of the TOMM in Spanish-speaking individuals is warranted, but with caution. The TOMMe10 yielded higher rates of invalid classification when compared to Trial 1 or Trial 2. IRT methods allow examination of whether traditional TOMM trial cut-offs may be appropriate when individuals present with advanced age or low educational attainment.
引用
收藏
页码:114 / 126
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cross-validation of the Utility of Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Cut-offs in a Large Colombian Sample
    K. Chase Bailey
    William Goatte
    Daniela Ramos-Usuga
    Diego Rivera
    Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla
    Psychological Injury and Law, 2021, 14 : 114 - 126
  • [2] Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) - validation data from a geriatric sample
    Teichner, G
    Wagner, MT
    ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 16 (08) : 855 - 855
  • [3] Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)
    Rees, LM
    Tombaugh, TN
    Gansler, DA
    Moczynski, NP
    PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1998, 10 (01) : 10 - 20
  • [4] Clinical utility of Trial 1 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)
    O'Bryant, Sid E.
    Gavett, Brandon E.
    McCaffrey, Robert J.
    O'Jile, Judith R.
    Huerkamp, Justin K.
    Smitherman, Todd A.
    Humphreys, Joy D.
    APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 15 (02): : 113 - 116
  • [5] Psychometric validation and clinical application of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)
    Teichner, G
    Wagner, MT
    Newman, SA
    ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 15 (08) : 673 - 674
  • [6] Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) among a large clinic-referred pediatric sample
    Kirk, John W.
    Harris, Bryn
    Hutaff-Lee, Christa F.
    Koelemay, StephenW
    Dinkins, Juliet P.
    Kirkwood, Michael W.
    CHILD NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 17 (03) : 242 - 254
  • [7] Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) among a Large Clinic-referred Pediatric Sample
    Kirk, J. W.
    Dinkins, J. P.
    Harris, B.
    Koelemay, S. W.
    CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2009, 23 (04) : 619 - 619
  • [8] Performance on the test of memory malingering (TOMM) among a clinicreferred pediatric sample
    Kirk, J. W.
    Dinkins, J. P.
    CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2008, 22 (03) : 447 - 447
  • [9] Cross-Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1: Suggested Discontinuation Rules
    Anderson, S.
    Kulas, J.
    CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2012, 26 (03) : 387 - 387
  • [10] Cross-Validation of Supplemental Test of Memory Malingering Scores as Performance Validity Measures
    Kulas J.F.
    Axelrod B.N.
    Rinaldi A.R.
    Psychological Injury and Law, 2014, 7 (3) : 236 - 244