The Albany Consistency Index for the Test of Memory Malingering

Gunner, Jessica H.; Miele, Andrea S.; Lynch, Julie K.; McCaffrey, Robert J.

doi:10.1093/arclin/acr089

Cited by 31 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluating inconsistencies across recognition trials as a marker for dishonest protocols proved an interesting option for an indicator due to its high classification accuracy and its small chance of being identified as a validity measure throughout assessment (Buddin et al, 2014;Gunner et al,…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This article investigates the accuracy of individual and combined indicators based on different strategies for detecting noncredible performance as part of a new test for the continuous assessment of short-term memory. Method: In two independent studies, we assessed three groups of simulators, cognitively impaired patients, and nonimpaired community members with four tasks separated by a distractor. Results: Pairwise comparisons between receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed significant differences between two clusters of indicators: mean recognition, inconsistent responses in recognition, and false positives (area under the ROC curves > .800) proved more accurate than delayed recall and false negatives (area under the ROC curves < .800) in discriminating simulators from patients. Likewise, both studies revealed that adding the false positives indicator based on cued recall to mean recognition incrementally improved classification accuracy (including sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value ) compared with the recognition indicator alone. Conclusions: Our results support the association of two distinct indicators for the assessment of noncredible performance, of which one should be a forced-choice indicator.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various factors, such as education, intelligence, age and severity of injury, may affect the performance validity and subsequently reduce the value and reliability of PVT. The TOMM showed high reliability when considering the influence of age, education, psychiatric conditions, and cognitive impairment (Ashendorf, Constantinou, & McCaffrey, ; Gunner, Miele, Lynch, & McCaffrey, ; Iverson, Le Page, Koehler, Shojania, & Badii, ; Moser et al., ; Rees, Tombaugh, & Boulay, ; Teichner & Wagner, ). However, the administration time of two learning trials (Trials 1, 2) of TOMM is approximately 15 min (Lynch, ), and the retention trial takes 15–20 min.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment in severe traumatic brain injury patients with the Forced‐choice Graphics Memory Test

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe Forced‐choice Graphics Memory Test (FGMT) is a newly developed measure to assess feigned cognitive impairment. This study investigated the ability and reliability of FGMT for identification of malingering in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).MethodsThe FGMT was administered to 40 healthy volunteers instructed to respond validly (Healthy Control, H‐C), 40 healthy volunteers instructed to feign cognitive impairment (Healthy Malingering, H‐M), 40 severe TBI patients who responded validly (TBI control, TBI‐C), and 30 severe TBI patients who evidenced invalid performance (TBI malingering, TBI‐M).ResultsBoth malingering groups (H‐M and TBI‐M) performed much more poorly than the nonmalingering groups (H‐C and TBI‐C). The FGMT overall total score, score on easy items, and score on hard items differed significantly across the four groups. The total score showed the highest classification accuracy in differentiating malingering from nonmalingering. A cutoff of less than 18 (total items) successfully identified 95% of TBI‐C and 93.3% of TBI‐M participants. The FGMT also demonstrated high test–retest reliability and internal consistency. FGMT scores were not affected by TBI patients' education, gender, age, or intelligence.ConclusionOur results suggest that the FGMT can be used as a fast and reliable tool for identification of feigned cognitive impairment in patients with TBI.

show abstract

“…Whereas there have been recent attempts at evaluating the implications for classification produced by these kinds of scoring and administration differences, e.g., by using only the first trials of each PVT (WMT and TOMM together; Bauer, O’Bryant, Lynch, McCaffrey, & Fisher, 2007), and development of a consistency score for the TOMM (Davis, Wall, & Whitney, 2012; Gunner, Miele, Lynch, & McCaffrey, 2012), to our knowledge no research has yet specifically explored the test-effect, or manipulated the use of unassessed learning trials on PVT performance while holding other cognitively relevant factors constant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Gap Between Neurocognitive Processing Theory and Performance Validity Assessment among the Cognitively Impaired: A Review and Methodological Approach

Leighton¹,

Weinborn²,

Maybery³

2014

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bigler (2012) and Larrabee (2012) recently addressed the state of the science surrounding performance validity tests (PVTs) in a dialogue highlighting evidence for the valid and increased use of PVTs, but also for unresolved problems. Specifically, Bigler criticized the lack of guidance from neurocognitive processing theory in the PVT literature. For example, individual PVTs have applied the simultaneous forced-choice methodology using a variety of test characteristics (e.g., word vs. picture stimuli) with known neurocognitive processing implications (e.g., the "picture superiority effect"). However, the influence of such variations on classification accuracy has been inadequately evaluated, particularly among cognitively impaired individuals. The current review places the PVT literature in the context of neurocognitive processing theory, and identifies potential methodological factors to account for the significant variability we identified in classification accuracy across current PVTs. We subsequently evaluated the utility of a well-known cognitive manipulation to provide a Clinical Analogue Methodology (CAM), that is, to alter the PVT performance of healthy individuals to be similar to that of a cognitively impaired group. Initial support was found, suggesting the CAM may be useful alongside other approaches (analogue malingering methodology) for the systematic evaluation of PVTs, particularly the influence of specific neurocognitive processing components on performance.

show abstract

The Albany Consistency Index for the Test of Memory Malingering

Cited by 31 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies

Evaluation of Various Detection Strategies in the Assessment of Noncredible Memory Performance: Results of Two Experimental Studies

Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment in severe traumatic brain injury patients with the Forced‐choice Graphics Memory Test

Bridging the Gap Between Neurocognitive Processing Theory and Performance Validity Assessment among the Cognitively Impaired: A Review and Methodological Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About