Efficacy of Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, Trial 2, the Retention Trial, and the Albany Consistency Index in a Criterion Group Forensic Neuropsychological Sample

The Test of Memory Malingering is one of the most popular and heavily researched validity tests available for use in neuropsychological evaluations. Recent research has suggested, however, that the original indices and cutoffs may require modifications to increase sensitivity rates. Some of these mo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of clinical neuropsychology 2013-02, Vol.28 (1), p.21-29
Main Authors: SCHROEDER, R. W, BUDDIN, W. H, HARGRAVE, D. D, VONDRAN, E. J, CAMPBELL, E. B, BROCKMAN, C. J, HEINRICHS, R. J, BAADE, L. E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Disability Evaluation
Female
Forensic Psychiatry
Humans
Male
Malingering - diagnosis
Malingering - psychology
Medical sciences
Memory Disorders - diagnosis
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests
Personality Tests
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Reproducibility of Results
Retention (Psychology) - physiology
ROC Curve
Statistics, Nonparametric
Techniques and methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Test of Memory Malingering is one of the most popular and heavily researched validity tests available for use in neuropsychological evaluations. Recent research has suggested, however, that the original indices and cutoffs may require modifications to increase sensitivity rates. Some of these modifications lack cross-validation and no study has examined all indices in a single sample. This study compares Trial 1, Trial 2, the Retention Trial, and the newly created Albany Consistency Index in a criterion group forensic neuropsychological sample. Findings lend support for the newly created indices and cutoff scores. Implications and cautionary statements are provided and discussed.
ISSN:0887-6177
1873-5843
DOI:10.1093/arclin/acs094