Several studies have examined the usefulness of the Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words as a measure to detect suspect effort, although samples have generally been small and/or comprised of simulators rather than "real world" credible and noncredible patients. The current study examined the Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words total score and response time of "real world" noncredible patients (as determined by motive to feign, failure on > or =2 independent measures of response bias, low cognitive scores inconsistent with normal ADLs; n = 190) versus credible patients (as determined by no motive to feign, failure of < or =1 measure of response bias; n = 124) derived from an archival database of individuals from the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Outpatient Neuropsychology Service, and the private practice of the second author. Noncredible patients obtained significantly lower total scores and longer times to complete the task. A total correct cutoff of < or =42 was found to have excellent specificity (91.9%) and sensitivity (88.9%), whereas a time cutoff of > or =207'' was associated with 65.5% sensitivity at 90.7% specificity, and when the time cut-score was used in combination with the total score cutoff, an additional 5% of the noncredible participants were captured, raising overall sensitivity to 93.7% (at 87.1% specificity). Thus, the Warrington Recognition Memory Test-Words, although not originally created for the purposes of measuring suspect effort, appears to be an excellent measure for detecting response bias on neuropsychological testing.

Abstract. We tested the notion that patients at high risk for progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) display relatively isolated memory deficits by assessing the relationship between memory and fluency performances in a sample of 92 geriatric subjects with cognitive complaints and normal to mild clinical presentations. Patient groups were formed on the basis of memory test scores. Patients with normal memory scores also performed normally on fluency tests, and their fluency scores were significantly higher than those of patients with low memory performances. Patients falling between these two groups in memory abilities also displayed intermediate level fluency performances. Whereas the normal memory group performed at equivalent levels on semantic and phonemic fluency tasks, both the impaired memory group and the intermediate group displayed relatively greater weaknesses in semantic fluency. This pattern is similar to that seen in AD. Since the impaired memory patients meet criteria for Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, these findings suggest that memory deficits in "pre-clinical" AD are likely to be accompanied by fluency weaknesses, with semantic fluency weaknesses predominating.