Assessing effort level during neuropsychological evaluations is critical to support the accuracy of cognitive test scores. Many instruments are designed to measure effort, yet they are not routinely administered in neuropsychological assessments. The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Word Memory Test (WMT) are commonly administered symptom validity tests with sound psychometric properties. This study examines the use of the TOMM Trial 1 and the WMT Immediate Recognition (IR) trial scores as brief screening tools for insufficient effort through an archival analysis of a combined sample of mild head-injury litigants ( N = 105) who were assessed in forensic private practices. Results show that both demonstrate impressive diagnostic accuracy and calculations of positive and negative predictive power are presented for a range of base rates. These results support the utility of Trial 1 of the TOMM and the WMT IR trial as screening methods for the assessment of insufficient effort in neuropsychological assessments.

Symptom validity assessment is an important part of neuropsychological evaluation. There are currently several free-standing symptom validity tests (SVTs), as well as a number of empirically derived embedded validity indices, that have been developed to assess that an examinee is putting forth an optimal level of effort during testing. The use of embedded validity indices is attractive since they do not increase overall testing time and may also be less vulnerable to coaching. In addition, there are some instances where embedded validity indices are the only tool available to the neuropsychological practitioner for assessing an examinee's level of effort. As with free-standing measures, the sensitivity and specificity of embedded validity indices to suboptimal effort varies. The present study evaluated the diagnostic validity of 17 embedded validity indices by comparing performance on these indices to performance on combinations of free-standing SVTs. Results from the current medico-legal sample revealed that of the embedded validity indices, Reliable Digit Span had the best classification accuracy; however, the findings do not support the use of this embedded validity index in the absence of free-standing SVTs.

No abstract

There is currently no standard criterion for determining abnormal test scores in neuropsychology; thus, a number of different criteria are commonly used. We investigated base rates of abnormal scores in healthy older adults using raw and T-scores from indices of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Stroop Color-Word Test. Abnormal scores were examined cumulatively at seven cutoffs including >1.0, >1.5, >2.0, >2.5, and >3.0 standard deviations (SD) from the mean as well as those below the 10th and 5th percentiles. In addition, the number of abnormal scores at each of the seven cutoffs was also examined. Results showed when considering raw scores, ∼15% of individuals obtained scores>1.0 SD from the mean, around 10% were less than the 10th percentile, and 5% fell >1.5 SD or <5th percentile from the mean. Using T-scores, approximately 15%-20% and 5%-10% of scores were >1.0 and >1.5 SD from the mean, respectively. Roughly 15% and 5% fell at the <10th and <5th percentiles, respectively. Both raw and T-scores>2.0 SD from the mean were infrequent. Although the presence of a single abnormal score at 1.0 and 1.5 SD from the mean or at the 10th and 5th percentiles was not unusual, the presence of ≥2 abnormal scores using any criteria was uncommon. Consideration of base rate data regarding the percentage of healthy individuals scoring in the abnormal range should help avoid classifying normal variability as neuropsychological impairment.