Development and initial validation of a new procedure for evaluating adequacy of effort given during neuropsychological testing: The letter memory test.

Inman, Tina Hanlon; Vickery, Chad D.; Berry, David T. R.; Lamb, David G.; Edwards, Christopher L.; Smith, Gregory T.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.128

Cited by 85 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All participants were administered the Letter Memory Test (LMT), which is a 45-item, forced-choice recognition task that uses letters as stimuli and manipulates apparent difficulty level through variation of the number of letters to be remembered and the number of choices from which the target stimulus must be selected. 36 Inman and colleagues found that the LMT discriminated poorly motivated from wellmotivated groups at a moderately high level of accuracy and had high internal consistency reliability. 36 A recent meta-analysis showed LMT efficacy in differentiating feigned and honest responders to be comparable to the Word Memory Test (WMT), the Digit Memory Test (DMT), and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…36 Inman and colleagues found that the LMT discriminated poorly motivated from wellmotivated groups at a moderately high level of accuracy and had high internal consistency reliability. 36 A recent meta-analysis showed LMT efficacy in differentiating feigned and honest responders to be comparable to the Word Memory Test (WMT), the Digit Memory Test (DMT), and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). 37 Using the optimal cut-rate of 93%, the LMT has moderate sensitivity (70.2%) and high specificity (93%) to detect feigning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Combined Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on Returning Veterans

Combs

Berry

Pape

et al. 2015

Journal of Neurotrauma

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

United States veterans of the Iraqi (Operation Iraqi Freedom [OIF]) and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom [OEF]) conflicts have frequently returned from deployment after sustaining mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and enduring stressful events resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A large number of returning service members have been diagnosed with both a history of mTBI and current PTSD. Substantial literature exists on the neuropsychological factors associated with mTBI and PTSD occurring separately; far less research has explored the combined effects of PTSD and mTBI. The current study employed neuropsychological and psychological measures in a sample of 251 OIF/ OEF veterans to determine whether participants with a history of mTBI and current PTSD (mTBI + PTSD) have poorer cognitive and psychological outcomes than participants with mTBI only (mTBI-o), PTSD only (PTSD-o), or veteran controls (VC), when groups are comparable on intelligence quotient, education, and age. The mTBI + PTSD group performed more poorly than VC, mTBI-o, and PTSD-o groups on several neuropsychological measures. Effect size comparisons suggest small deleterious effects for mTBI-o on measures of processing speed and visual attention and small effects for PTSD-o on measures of verbal memory, with moderate effects for mTBI + PTSD on the same variables. Additionally, the mTBI + PTSD group was significantly more psychologically distressed than the PTSD-o group, and PTSD-o group was more distressed than VC and mTBI-o groups. These findings suggest that veterans with mTBI + PTSD perform significantly lower on neuropsychological and psychiatric measures than veterans with mTBI-o or PTSD-o. The results also raise the possibility of mild but persisting cognitive changes following mTBI sustained during deployment.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Combined Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on Returning Veterans

Combs

Berry

Pape

et al. 2015

Journal of Neurotrauma

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no significant difference in IQ between the SG and NSG groups (n 5 237; t 5 .754; df 5 235; p 5 .451). Application of the conventional 90% rule (e.g., Grote et al, 2000;Inman et al, 1998;Tombaugh, 1996) on one or more of the forced-choice effort measures resulted in 182 individuals being classified as having sufficient effort (SE) and 125 as demonstrating insufficient effort (IE).…”

Section: Methods Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the MMPI-2, all respondents completed a variety of neuropsychological measures as part of their comprehensive evaluation, and forcedchoice effort measures. Effort tests included the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick et al, 1995), the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), the Multi-Digit Memory Test (MDMT; Niccolls & Bolter, 1991), the Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), and the Letter Memory Test (LMT; Inman et al, 1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A previous meta-analysis (Vickery et al, 2001) found the Digit Memory Test (DMT; Hiscock & Hiscock, 1989) to be most effective in identifying IE relative to other effort measures examined, including non-forced-choice measures. Similar forced-choice measures, such as the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT; Slick et al, 1995), the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), Multi-Digit Memory Test (MDMT; Niccolls & Bolter, 1991), Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), and the Letter Memory Test (LMT; Inman et al, 1998) have also demonstrated respective utility in civil and simulating samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of MMPI-2 to predict cognitive effort: A hierarchically optimal classification tree analysis

Smart

Nelson

Sweet

et al. 2008

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychologists routinely rely on response validity measures to evaluate the authenticity of test performances. However, the relationship between cognitive and psychological response validity measures is not clearly understood. It remains to be seen whether psychological test results can predict the outcome of response validity testing in clinical and civil forensic samples. The present analysis applied a unique statistical approach, classification tree methodology (Optimal Data Analysis: ODA), in a sample of 307 individuals who had completed the MMPI-2 and a variety of cognitive effort measures. One hundred ninety-eight participants were evaluated in a secondary gain context, and 109 had no identifiable secondary gain. Through recurrent dichotomous discriminations, ODA provided optimized linear decision trees to classify either sufficient effort (SE) or insufficient effort (IE) according to various MMPI-2 scale cutoffs. After "pruning" of an initial, complex classification tree, the Response Bias Scale (RBS) took precedence in classifying cognitive effort. After removing RBS from the model, Hy took precedence in classifying IE. The present findings provide MMPI-2 scores that may be associated with SE and IE among civil litigants and claimants, in addition to illustrating the complexity with which MMPI-2 scores and effort test results are associated in the litigation context. (JINS, 2008, 14, 842-852.)

show abstract

Evaluation of Malingering and Deception

Rogers¹,

Bender²

2003

Handbook of Psychology

108

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of malingering and other forms of deception is a cornerstone issue in forensic practice. This chapter provides both conceptual and clinical issues about the assessment of response styles. It carefully distinguishes explanatory models that address the underlying motivation for dissimulation from detection models that consider clinical methods for the identification of response styles. In particular, malingering can be unduly influenced by our misassumptions and our perspectives toward its assessment. Regarding the latter, intuitional, standard, and specialized perspectives of malingering are explored. Clinical methods for the assessment of response styles are highly dependent on their validation. Relative contributions of different research designs (simulation, known‐groups, differential‐prevalence, and bootstrapping) are reviewed. Detection strategies are examined for dissimulation with mental disorders and feigned cognitive impairment. Specialized measures (e.g., the SIRS, PDRT, and VIP) are featured for: (1) malingering and mental disorders, (2) defensiveness and mental disorders, and (3) malingering and cognitive impairment.

show abstract

Development and initial validation of a new procedure for evaluating adequacy of effort given during neuropsychological testing: The letter memory test.

Cited by 85 publications

References 48 publications

The Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Combined Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on Returning Veterans

The Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Combined Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on Returning Veterans

Use of MMPI-2 to predict cognitive effort: A hierarchically optimal classification tree analysis

Evaluation of Malingering and Deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About