Using the WMS-III Faces Subtest to Detect Malingered Memory Impairment

Glassmire, David M.; Bierley, Rex A.; Wisniewski, Amy M.; Greene, Roger L.; Kennedy, Jan E.; Date, Elaine S.

doi:10.1076/jcen.25.4.465.13875

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it is important to study effects of coaching on different single or combined measures used to detect feigned memory performance. In previous research employing analog designs, healthy participants were instructed to feign memory impairment and were provided with different amounts of information on the sequelae of brain injury and on the procedures involved in neuropsychological testing (for notable exceptions including a group of brain-injured patients, see [ 27 , 28 ]). For most of the studied measures, naïve malingerers and malingerers who received information about the most common symptoms of brain injury (symptom coached simulators) were relatively easy to detect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Detecting malingering or exaggeration of impairments in brain function after traumatic brain injury is of increasing importance in neuropsychological assessment. Lawyers involved in brain injury litigation cases routinely coach their clients how to approach neuropsychological testing to their advantage. Thus, it is important to know how robust assessment methods are with respect to symptom malingering or exaggeration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, it is quite possible that, because of the small sample size of stimuli used in the MAS (n = 10) and RBMT (n = 5), these subtests may not be sensitive enough to detect deficits in facial memory. The exception is the WMS-III Faces subtest, which has begun to receive attention in the recent literature; findings have suggested that this test is sensitive to deficits in autism, temporal lobectomy, and possibly to malingered neurocognitive deficits (Doss, Chelune, & Naugle, 2004;Glassmire et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Preliminary Findings on the Cross Cultural Test of Face Recognition

O’Bryant¹,

McCaffrey²

2006

Applied Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utility of psychological tests cross-culturally has received a great deal of attention in psychology. However, this same level of attentiveness has yet to be realized in the field of neuropsychology. One such area of neuropsychological assessment that may be negatively impacted by racial and ethnic variables is the assessment of facial memory. There is a plethora of literature in cognitive psychology demonstrating an own-race recognition bias in human face memory. Simply stated, individuals are more apt to accurately remember faces of individuals who are of their own race rather than those of other races. Study 1 was conducted to evaluate the performance of the Cross Cultural Test of Face Recognition (CCTFR) in a diverse sample of non impaired individuals. Results suggested the presence of an own-race recognition bias present, but this had no impact on overall CCTFR performance. Study 2 was conducted to determine if CVA patients would perform more poorly than community controls on the CCTFR. As predicted, community controls significantly outperformed CVA patients, and the CCTFR demonstrated a moderate level of sensitivity and specificity. Combined, the results of these studies provide preliminary support for the utility of the CCTFR in the neuropsychological assessment of diverse patient populations. Clearly more research is needed to support the utility of this new test of face recognition, but preliminary results suggest that it may be a viable option for the assessment of visual memory across a spectrum of ethnic groups.

show abstract

“…This is a critical issue. Over the past several years, researchers have been encouraging the use of Bayesian methods (eg, 20,21 ) for effort testing (eg, 11,22–28 ). Unfortunately, Bayesian methods, and other interesting statistical methodologies (eg, 29,30 ), including odds and likelihood ratios (eg, 31–34 ), are rarely used in mainstream clinical practice.…”

Section: Test Of Memory Malingering (Tomm) Trial 2 Performances In CLmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Exaggeration and Malingering

Iverson

2007

Pain Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article by , in this issue, is designed to assist clinicians and researchers with the conceptualization and identification of exaggeration and malingering. This article, in my view, makes a clear practical and scholarly contribution to the literature. This article is particularly helpful for physicians who are unfamiliar with the very large malingering literature in psychology and in neuropsychology. The authors have effectively integrated extensive clinical experience with a review of the empirical literature, resulting in timely, practical, and appropriate recommendations for how to identify exaggeration and malingering. This article builds upon the specific guidelines and recommendations for identifying malingering in a neuropsychological evaluation that have been available for several years, 1 and have more recently been published for pain-related disability evaluations. 2 Readers interested in more information should consider other reviews of this topic (eg, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. For the forensic examiner, Aronoff and colleagues have provided suggestions and advice for improving the quality and thoroughness of one's evaluation.Some readers will be troubled by the possibility that this article, and a related article by Bianchini and colleagues, 2 will lead to misidentifying exaggeration that is associated with learned illness behavior patterns, personality characteristics, or both, as malingering. However, the careful, objective, and unbiased application of the recommendations and guidelines set out in these articles should not lead to an increase in misidentifying malingering. Nonetheless, it is useful to consider exaggeration, as behavior, in a broader context. Exaggeration and malingering are conceptually related, but they are not synonymous. Exaggeration is common in medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and in daily life. By comparison, malingering is uncommon. Exaggeration is more common in people with certain personality characteristics or disorders, and it is more likely to manifest in association with certain clinical conditions such as depression, chronic pain, fibromyalgia, the somatoform disorders, and factitious disorder.Exaggeration is a core feature of malingering, but exaggeration often does not reflect malingering. The pervasive negativism and cognitive distortions seen in some patients with major depressive disorder can result in self-reported symptoms and problems that appear to be, and frequently are, exaggerated. Some patients with chronic pain conditions and somatoform disorders behaviorally evolve into describing their symptoms and problems in an exaggerated manner. That is, their interpersonal style changes over time, through environmental factors and social reinforcement, to include verbal

show abstract

Using the WMS-III Faces Subtest to Detect Malingered Memory Impairment

Cited by 19 publications

References 46 publications

The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment

Preliminary Findings on the Cross Cultural Test of Face Recognition

Identifying Exaggeration and Malingering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About