Jones, A. (2013) Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Cutoff Scores for Psychometrically Defined Malingering Groups in a Military Sample The Clinical Neuropsychologist. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2013.851740
When the above article was first published online, the second paragraph of the Results read:
Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations for the NM, PM, and PDM groups, and this table also provides the effect sizes when comparing the NM group with the two other groups. As can be seen in Table 2 Glass’s Delta demonstrates that there are very large differences in means between the NM and the other groups. The largest effect sizes are for the Hard, Total, and Easy – Hard difference. Cohen’s d also reveals large effect sizes, except for the Easy Items which is negligible. The effect sizes using Cohen’s d are not as large as those using the more appropriate estimate of the population SD, but the pattern of results parallel that of Glass’s Delta.
It should read:
Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations for the NM, PM, and PDM groups, and this table also provides the effect sizes when comparing the NM group with the two other groups. As can be seen in Table 2 Glass’s Delta demonstrates that there are very large differences in means between the NM and the other groups. The largest effect sizes are for the Hard, Total, and Easy – Hard difference. Cohen’s d also reveals large effect sizes. The effect sizes using Cohen’s d are not as large as those using the more appropriate estimate of the population SD, but the pattern of results parallel that of Glass’s Delta.
In Table 2, column Effect Size Cohen’s d, row Easy Items, the values .06 and .06 are incorrect and should read 1.17 and 1.30 respectively.
The author apologizes for this error.