Examination Of Various Wms-Iii Logical Memory Scores In The Assessment Of Response Bias

Abstract

The assessment of response validity during neuropsychological evaluation is an integral part of the testing process. Research has increasingly focused on the use of “embedded” effort measures (derived from standard neuropsychological tasks) because they do not require additional administration time and are less likely to be identified as effort indicators by test takers because of their primary focus as measures of cognitive function. The current study examined the clinical utility of various WMS-III Logical Memory scores in detecting response bias, as well as the Rarely Missed Index, an embedded effort indicator derived from the WMS-III Logical Memory Delayed Recognition subtest. The Rarely Missed Index cut-off only identified 24.1% of 63 non-credible participants (at ≥90% specificity in 125 credible patients), and cut-offs for other Logical Memory variables were in fact found to be more sensitive to non-credible performance. A new indicator, consisting of the weighted combination of the two most sensitive Logical Memory subtest scores (Logical Memory II raw score and Logical Memory Delayed Recognition raw score), was associated with 53% to 60% sensitivity, and thus may be an effective adjunct when utilized in conjunction with other validated effort indicators and collateral information in identifying non-credible performance.

Keywords:

• Logical Memory
• Wechsler Memory Scale–III
• Malingering
• Rarely Missed Index
• Effort

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Notes

¹The Rarely Correct Index consisted of the number of correct responses to Logical Memory Delayed Recognition (LMDR) items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 17, 23, 25, 26, and 27.

²The new Rarely Missed Index consisted of the number of correct responses to Logical Memory Delayed Recognition (LMDR) items 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 29.

³Descriptive statistics for the 30 most educated credible participants who were excluded from the analyses showed that on average the 30 participants were 50.43 years of age (SD = 12.83), with a mean educational level of 17.03 years (SD = 1.33).