Administration Order Effects on the Test of Memory Malingering

Ryan, Joseph J.; Hinds, Ryan M.; Glass, Laura A.; Brown, Cassandra N.

doi:10.1037/e520732008-001

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the growing consensus that multiple measures should be used when evaluating the credibility of symptoms in forensic assessment, so far research has dedicated little attention to the effects of administration order on performance and/or self-report symptom validity tests (Bigler, 2012). Consistent with this limited, available empirical research (e.g., Ryan et al, 2010;Zu & Tulsky, 2000), our study showed that different administration orders led to very similar results. Pending future replications and additional research addressing specificity, these findings thus do not substantiate any worries about possible administration order effects for the TOMM and IOP-29.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Furthermore, but not less importantly, if one wanted to use the IOP-29 together with another test, at this time there would be no indication as to what tool one should administer first. In fact, more generally, despite the increasing importance attributed to the multi-method symptom validity assessment, the possible influence of administration order on response bias measures has not been sufficiently investigated (e.g., Bigler, 2012;Ryan et al, 2010).…”

Section: Using the Inventory Of Problems -29 (Iop-29) With The Test Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners

Giromini

Barbosa

Coga

et al. 2019

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested whether combining the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) would increase sensitivity in the detection of experimentally feigned mental health problems, compared to using either test alone. Additionally, it also evaluated (a) the effects of administration order of these two tests and (b) the cultural and linguistic applicability of these tests to a European Portuguese population. The IOP-29 and TOMM were administered to a community sample of 100 nonclinical, adult volunteers from Portugal, with the instruction to feign mental health problems. Half were instructed to feign mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) symptoms, half were instructed to feign major depression. Administration order had no effects on the tests' scores, and both measures produced excellent sensitivity values, ranging from .82 to .98 for the TOMM, and from .88 to 1.00 for the IOP-29, when using standard a-priori cutoff scores. More importantly, combining the results of TOMM with those of IOP-29 notably increased sensitivity compared to using either test alone. This study thus supports the use of the IOP-29 together with the TOMM in multi-method symptom validity assessments and provides initial evidence that both tests can be used also in Portugal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Using the Inventory Of Problems -29 (Iop-29) With The Test Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners

Giromini

Barbosa

Coga

et al. 2019

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, a reasonable argument has been made that multiple SVTs are needed, especially in any lengthy or forensic assessment (Boone, 2009; Larrabee, 2008), but again no agreed upon professional standards as to the correct number, in what order, and in what context. Administration of multiple SVT measures also raises other questions when failures on some but not others occur and whether there is an order effect in SVT test administration (Ryan, Glass, Hinds, & Brown, 2010)?…”

Section: Is There a Neurobiology Of Drive Effort Motivation And Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptom Validity Testing, Effort, and Neuropsychological Assessment

Bigler

2012

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractSymptom validity testing (SVT) has become a major theme of contemporary neuropsychological research. However, many issues about the meaning and interpretation of SVT findings will require the best in research design and methods to more precisely characterize what SVT tasks measure and how SVT test findings are to be used in neuropsychological assessment. Major clinical and research issues are overviewed including the use of the “effort” term to connote validity of SVT performance, the use of cut-scores, the absence of lesion-localization studies in SVT research, neuropsychiatric status and SVT performance and the rigor of SVT research designs. Case studies that demonstrate critical issues involving SVT interpretation are presented. (JINS, 2012,18, 1–11)

show abstract

Administration Order Effects on the Test of Memory Malingering

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners

Symptom Validity Testing, Effort, and Neuropsychological Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About