The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

Rüsseler, Jascha; Brett, Alexandra; Klaue, Ulrike; Sailer, Michael; Münte, Thomas F.

doi:10.1186/1471-2377-8-37

Cited by 33 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The WCT has the advantage of being relatively new and not widely known in the medico-legal setting. Currently, little information about the test is available via the Internet, unlike the detailed information relating to the TOMM, which is readily available on the Internet and in books and is well known by attorneys (Bauer & McCaffrey, 2006;Brennan et al, 2009;Russler et al, 2008). Further, Miller and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that the WCT added incremental value to the predictive accuracy of the Wechsler Memory ScaleFourth Edition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…It has been reported that a large number of attorneys routinely coach their clients on how to approach neuropsychological tests (Brennan et al, 2009;Jelicic, Ceunen, Peters, & Merckelbach, 2011;Powell et al, 2004;Russler, Brett, Klaue, Sailer, & Munte, 2008;Suhr & Gunstad, 2007). Studies investigating the effects of coaching on the TOMM found that although coaching reduced the incidence of detection, the TOMM still detected 80% to 87% (Jelicic et al, 2011) and 93% to 96% (Powell et al, 2004) of coached TBI simulators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of the Degree of Effort Involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test Using a Dual-Task Paradigm

Barhon

Batchelor

Meares

et al. 2014

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of the current study were to: (a) examine the predictive validity and efficacy of the Advanced Clinical Solutions Word Choice Test (WCT) as a measure of effort relative to the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM); (b) investigate whether performing a dual (distraction) task would undermine performance on either test; (c) assess the effect of coaching on the diagnostic accuracy of both the WCT and the TOMM; and (d) establish an optimal cut score for the WCT. The current study used a simulation design based on an analogue design in which normal participants were instructed to either apply full effort or simulate a brain injury on the tasks without being detected. Participants included 93 undergraduate university students who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) distraction, (b) uncoached traumatic brain injury (TBI) simulators, (c) coached TBI simulators, or (d) full effort. The results demonstrated that the WCT and the TOMM were effective in detecting simulated cognitive impairment. Both tests were resistant to the effects of distraction and were equally effective in detecting coached and uncoached simulators. A cut score of 42 on the WCT was found to provide optimal specificity and sensitivity on the test.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

A Comparison of the Degree of Effort Involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test Using a Dual-Task Paradigm

Barhon

Batchelor

Meares

et al. 2014

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bias-97 (CARB-97) and Word Memory Test (Dunn, Shear, Howe, & Ris, 2003), Rey's 15-Item Test and Dot Counting Test (Erdal, 2004), Portland Digit Recognition Test (Gunstad & Suhr, 2001), Category Test (DiCarlo, Gfeller, & Oliveri, 2000), Medical Symptom Validity Test and the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test (Merten, Green, Henry, Blaskewitz, & Brockhaus, 2005), and Short-Term-Memory Test from the Bremer Symptom-Validierung (Russeler, Brett, Klaue, Sailer, & Munte, 2008). Coached malingering was difficult to detect using these various tests.…”

Section: Studies Have Investigated the Effect Of Coaching On Various mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In instances where litigation is involved, lawyers may instruct their clients about PVTs (Lezak, Howieson, Bigler, & Tranel, ). Studies have investigated the effect of coaching on various types of malingering tests, such as Computerized Assessment of Response Bias‐97 (CARB‐97) and Word Memory Test (Dunn, Shear, Howe, & Ris, ), Rey's 15‐Item Test and Dot Counting Test (Erdal, ), Portland Digit Recognition Test (Gunstad & Suhr, ), Category Test (DiCarlo, Gfeller, & Oliveri, ), Medical Symptom Validity Test and the Amsterdam Short‐Term Memory Test (Merten, Green, Henry, Blaskewitz, & Brockhaus, ), and Short‐Term‐Memory Test from the Bremer Symptom‐Validierung (Russeler, Brett, Klaue, Sailer, & Munte, ). Coached malingering was difficult to detect using these various tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Is the SVT measure infallible? DenBoer and Hall (2007) have shown that simulators can be “taught” how to detect SVT tasks and pass them and go on to fail the more formal neuropsychological measures (see also Rüsseler, Brett, Klaue, Sailer, & Munte, 2008). If the SVT task can be faked how would the clinician and/or researcher know?…”

Section: The Problem With Cut Scoresmentioning

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

The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

Cited by 33 publications

References 35 publications

A Comparison of the Degree of Effort Involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test Using a Dual-Task Paradigm

A Comparison of the Degree of Effort Involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test Using a Dual-Task Paradigm

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

Symptom Validity Testing, Effort, and Neuropsychological Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About