Decision rules for an abbreviated administration of the Test of Memory Malingering

Abstract

The present study investigated abbreviation methods for the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in relation to traditional manual-based test cutoffs and independently derived more stringent cutoffs suggested by recent research (≤48 on Trial 2 or 3). Consecutively referred outpatient U.S. military veterans (n = 260) were seen for neuropsychological evaluation for mild traumatic brain injury or possible attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Performance on TOMM Trial 1 was evaluated, including the total score and errors on the first 10 items (TOMMe10), to determine correspondence and redundancy with Trials 2 and 3. Using the traditional cutoff, valid performance on Trials 2 and 3 was predicted by zero errors on TOMMe10 and by Trial 1 scores greater than 41. Invalid performance was predicted by commission of more than three errors on TOMMe10 and by Trial 1 scores less than 34. For revised TOMM cutoffs, a Trial 1 score above 46 was predictive of a valid score, and a TOMMe10 score of three or more errors or a Trial 1 score below 36 was associated with invalid TOMM performance. Conditional abbreviation of the TOMM is feasible in a vast majority of cases without sacrificing information regarding performance validity. Decision trees are provided to facilitate administration of the three trials.

Keywords:

• ADHD
• assessment
• forensic neuropsychology
• head injury
• performance validity

Disclosure statement

This work was authored as part of the Contributor's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 USC. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under US Law.