Skip to main content
Log in

Further Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 Performance Validity Index: Examination of False Positives and Convergent Validity

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 November 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Assessment of performance validity is an essential part of a neuropsychological evaluation, with the inclusion of two or more performance validity tests (PVTs) becoming routine practice. Considering the time to administer multiple tests, there has been some support for use of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 (T1) as an independent, “one and done” PVT. Notably, cutoffs for TOMM T1 need further validation, with an emphasis on minimizing false-positive classifications among those with bona fide cognitive impairment. In a clinically referred sample of 127 veterans, this study examined the role of cognitive impairment in TOMM performance and the utility of a TOMM T1 as an independent PVT. Examinees were administered the TOMM and three additional PVTs as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Sixty-eight percent of examinees were classified valid (35% of valid examinees were cognitively impaired). TOMM T1 ≤ 40 had excellent observed sensitivity (83%) and specificity (93%) overall, with minimal false-positive classification. TOMM T1 was also significantly correlated and concordant with other memory-based PVTs. Given score ranges and failure rates for TOMM T1 ≤ 40 among those with neurological/neurocognitive conditions, scores in the 37–40 range may merit administration of additional TOMM trials to maximize accuracy in identifying valid-cognitively impaired versus noncredible performance. Otherwise, an abbreviated TOMM administration (i.e., only T1) using a cutoff of ≤ 40—in conjunction with one or more additional PVTs—may be sufficient for detecting noncredible/invalid test performance in the absence of known or suspected neurological/neurocognitive disorders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 27 November 2018

    Correction of mistake in the original version of this paper, “Further Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 Performance Validity Index: Examination of False Positives and Convergent Validity”, the sentence “As indicated in Table 7, TOMM T1 ≤ 40 exhibited sensitivity of .86.

  • 27 November 2018

    Correction of mistake in the original version of this paper, ���Further Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 Performance Validity Index: Examination of False Positives and Convergent Validity���, the sentence ���As indicated in Table 7, TOMM T1���������40 exhibited sensitivity of .86.

Notes

  1. The sole examinee with a neurological condition that did not pass TOMM T1 ≥ 41 or the formal TOMM protocol obtained a score of 43 on TOMM T2.

References

  • American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2007). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) practice guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and consultation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(2), 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders - fifth edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, K. M., & Soble, J. R. (2017). Validation of the advanced clinical solutions word choice test (WCT) in a mixed clinical sample: establishing classification accuracy, sensitivity/specificity, and cutoff scores. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117725172.

  • Barhon, L. I., Batchelor, J., Meares, S., Chekaluk, E., & Shores, E. A. (2015). A comparison of the degree of effort involved in the TOMM and the ACS Word Choice Test using a dual-task paradigm. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 22(2), 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, K. B. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: a neuropsychological perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, K. B. (2012). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology: an evidence-based approach. New York City: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., et al. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity: NAN Policy & Planning Committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(4), 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. H. M., & Merton, T. (2013). Symptom validity and neuropsychological assessment: a survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 771–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. H. M., Peters, M. J. V., & Merckelbach, H. (2011). Cognitive underperformance and symptom over-reporting in a mixed psychiatric sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(5), 812–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2011.583280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, J. H. (2012). The efficiency and accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, errors on the first 10 items of The Test of Memory Malingering, and five embedded measures in predicting invalid test performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27, 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, J. H., & Shura, R. D. (2017). Cost of malingering mild traumatic brain injury-related cognitive deficits during compensation and pension evaluations in the veterans benefits administration. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1350684.

  • Donders, J. (2005). Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering in a mixed pediatric sample. Child Neuropsychology, 11(2), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, A. (2005). The impact of cognitive and psychiatric impairment of psychotic disorders on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Assessment, 12(2), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. L., Denning, J. H., & Denney, R. L. (2017). TOMM Trial 1 as a performance validity indicator in a criminal forensic sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(1), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavett, B. E., O’Bryant, S. E., Fisher, J. M., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Hit rates of adequate performance based on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1. Applied Neuropsychology, 12(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. (2003). Green’s Word Memory Test for Windows: User’s manual. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. (2004). Green’s medical symptom validity test. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P., Montijo, J., & Brockhaus, R. (2011). High specificity of the Word Memory Test and Medical Symptom Validity Test in groups with severe verbal memory impairment. Applied Neuropsychology, 18, 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenstein, M. F., Baker, W. J., & Gola, T. (1994). Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 6(3), 218–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., & Millis, S. R. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsabeck, R. C., Gordon, S. N., Hietpas-Wilson, T., & Zartman, A. L. (2011). Use of Trial 1 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) as a screening measure of effort: suggested discontinuation rules. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(7), 1228–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, M. D., Bedwell, J. S., & Duong, A. (2006). Abbreviated form of the Test of Memory Malingering. International Journal of Neuroscience, 116(10), 1181–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, G. L., Lange, R. T., Brooks, B. L., & Rennison, V. L. A. (2010). “Good old days” bias following mild traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24(1), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulas, J. F., Axelrod, B. N., & Rinaldi, A. R. (2014). Cross-validation of supplemental Test of Memory Malingering scores as performance validity measures. Psychology Injury and Law, 7, 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J. (2014). False-positive rates associated with the use of multiple performance and symptom validity tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(4), 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: a survey of North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. B., Millis, S. R., Rapport, L. J., Bashem, J. R., Hanks, R. A., & Axelrod, B. N. (2011). Detection of insufficient effort using the advanced clinical solutions for the Wechsler Memory Scale. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(1), 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, D., Wygant, D. B., Gervais, R. O., & Hart, K. J. (2018). Trial 1 versus Trial 2 of the Test of Memory Malingering: evaluating accuracy without a “gold standard”. Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Bryant, S. E., Engel, L. R., Kleiner, J. S., Vasterling, J. J., & Black, F. W. (2007). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 as a screening measure for insufficient effort. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(3), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040600611368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson. (2009). Advanced clinical solutions for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV: clinical and interpretive manual. San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: a survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(1), 33–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., Gansler, D. A., & Moczynski, N. P. (1998). Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, J. C., Robbins, R. N., Chang, L., & Van Gorp, W. G. (2006). Detection of inadequate effort on the California Verbal Learning Test-: forced choice recognition and critical item analysis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12(5), 688–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. W., Martin, P. K., Heinrichs, R. J., & Baade, L. E. (2018). Research methods in performance validity testing studies: criterion grouping approach impacts study outcomes. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1484517.

  • Schroeder, R. W., Twumasi-Ankrah, P., Baade, L. E., & Marshall, P. S. (2012). Reliable Digit Span: a systematic review and cross-validation study. Assessment, 19(1), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutte, C., & Axelrod, B. N. (2013). Use of embedded cognitive symptom validity measures in mild traumatic brain injury cases. In Mild traumatic brain injury: Symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp. 159–181). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharland, M. J., & Gfeller, J. D. (2007). A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(2), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., & Thompson, G. (1997). The Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D. J., Tan, J. E., Strauss, E. H., & Hultsch, D. F. (2004). Detecting malingering: a survey of experts’ practices. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(4), 465–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sollman, M. J., & Berry, D. T. (2011). Detection of inadequate effort on neuropsychological testing: a meta-analytic update and extension. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(8), 774–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suhr, J. A., & Barrash, J. (2007). Performance on standard attention, memory, and psychomotor speed tasks as indicators of malingering. In G. Larabee (Ed.), Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits (pp. 131–170). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240(4857), 1285–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teichner, G., & Wagner, M. T. (2004). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact, cognitively impaired, and elderly patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(3), 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering: TOMM. North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, T. A., & Soble, J. R. (2018). Utility of various WAIS-IV Digit Span indices for identifying noncredible performance validity among cognitively impaired and unimpaired examinees. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32, 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV: administration and scoring manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisdom, N. M., Brown, W. L., Chen, D. K., & Collins, R. L. (2012). The use of all three Test of Memory Malingering trials in establishing the level of effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(2), 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. C., Roper, B. L., & Arentsen, T. J. (2016). Validity testing and neuropsychology practice in the VA healthcare system: results from recent practitioner survey. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(4), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Troy A. Webber.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was IRB approved.

Informed Consent

All participants provided informed consent.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the official policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or U.S. Government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Webber, T.A., Bailey, K.C., Alverson, W.A. et al. Further Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 Performance Validity Index: Examination of False Positives and Convergent Validity. Psychol. Inj. and Law 11, 325–335 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9335-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9335-9

Keywords

Navigation