RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF THE TOMM

1. A Known Group Analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering: Validation of Diagnostic Decision Rules Melissa N. Womble, Martin L. Rohling, Roger Gervais, & Manfred Greiffenstein Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL PURPOSE To determine the best cutscore for Trial 1 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Utilize a known-groups design for the classification of the TOMM, using 11 symptom validity measures. To find equivalent specificities (95% Specificity) across multiple symptom validity measures (both published tests and embedded measures). RESULTS FOR FINDING EQUIVALENT SPECIFICITIES AMONG ALL SYMPTOM VALIDITY MEASURES Suggested Cutoffs after 2 Rounds of the Known-Groups Analysis: METHOD Data was collected from files of individuals who had completed a NP evaluation. S’s were 3075 individuals (age > 18 years) who had complete TOMM. Of these, 2408 had data from 3 or more SVTs for analysis. Of the 2408 S’s, demographics were: Age (M = 42 yrs; SD = 11.4), Gender (58% male), Incentives – Either litigation, compensation, or both (82% incentives). Data included the following measures: TOMM, WMT, CARB, MSVT, NVMSVT, CVLT (I & II), MMPI-2 validity scales, RDS, SDMT, Tapping, BCT, & the Sentence Repetition Test. S’s were also categorized using MLR criteria for Feigned Neurocognitive Dysfunction (FND). Definite 1 = No Incentives & No Below Chance Scores; Definite 2 = Incentives & No Below Chance Scores; Definite 3 = No Incentives & Below Chance Scores; Definite 4 = Incentives & Below Chance Scores. DISCUSSION RE: TOMM TRIAL 1 CUTOFF After 2 rounds of the analysis, the TOMM Trial 1cutoff that is recommended is < 40. See Table for scores on all subtests. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF THE TOMM TOMM scores for the known groups were submitted to a series of univariate ANOVA’s to examine the effects of using the MLR criteria for Feigned Neurocognitive Dysfunction. The ANOVAs were significant for all TOMM trials: [Trial 1: F(6,2399) = 748.8, p < .0001] [Trial 2: F(6,2399) = 683.8, p < .0001] [Retention Trial: F(6,2399) = 728.3, p < .0001]. Post hoc comparisons revealed differences between all groups, except Definite 1 & Definite 2, for all trials of the TOMM. These data suggest all TOMM trials, including Trial 1, can detect feigning in clinical practice using the modified Slick FND Score. CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF THE WMT WMT scores for the known groups were analyzed via ANOVAs. These were significant for all trials: [IR: F(6,1766) = 516.6, p < .0001] [DR: F(6,1766) = 503.4, p < .0001] [Con: F(6,1766) = 368.8, p < .0001]. Post-hoc comparisons revealed differences amongst all groups, except Definite 1 & Definite 2, & Definite 3 & Definite 4. WMT-IR WMT-DR WMT-CON TOMM Trial 1 TOMM Trial 2 TOMM Retention Citation: Womble, M. N., Rohling, M. L., Gervais, R., & Greiffenstein, M. (2010, October). A Known Groups Analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering: Validation of Diagnostic Decision Rules. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), Vancouver, BC. Email Addresses: meliss0625@hotmail.com and mrohling@usouthal.edu