-
The Clinical Neuropsychologist Jan 2020The present study, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, is the first systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The present study, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to examine traditional and alternative cutoffs across Trial 1, Trial 2, and Retention. Search criteria identified 539 articles published from 1997 to 2017. After application of selection criteria, 60 articles were retained for meta-analysis. Classification accuracy statistics were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. For Trial 1, a cutoff of <42 was found to result in the highest sensitivity value (0.59-0.70) when maintaining specificity at ≥0.90. Traditional cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96-0.98) and moderately sensitive (0.46-0.56) when considering all available studies and only neurocognitive/psychiatric samples classified by known-groups design. For both trials, a modified cutoff of <49 allowed for improved sensitivity (0.59-0.70) while maintaining adequate specificity (0.91-0.97). A supplementary review revealed that traditional TOMM cutoffs produced >0.90 specificity across most samples of examinees for whom English is not the primary language, but well-below acceptable levels in individuals with dementia. The TOMM is highly specific when interpreted per traditional cutoffs. In individuals not suspected of significant impairment, findings indicate that a less conservative TOMM Trial 2 or Retention cutoff of <49 can be interpreted as invalid, especially in settings associated with higher base rates of invalidity and, thus, higher positive predictive power. A cutoff of <42 on Trial 1 can also be interpreted as invalid in most settings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Malingering; Memory and Learning Tests; Neuropsychological Tests
PubMed: 31357918
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2019.1637027 -
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology :... Nov 2020This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in pediatric examinees. It adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in pediatric examinees. It adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted using PsycINFO and PubMed, reviewing articles from January 1997 to July 2019. Books providing data on pediatric validity testing were also reviewed for references to relevant articles. Eligibility criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, utilizing a pediatric sample, providing sufficient data to calculate specificity and/or sensitivity, and providing a means for evaluating validity status external to the TOMM. After selection criteria were applied, 9 articles remained for meta-analysis. Samples included clinical patients and healthy children recruited for research purposes; ages ranged from 5 to 18. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate classification accuracy statistics.
RESULTS
Traditional adult-derived cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96-0.99) in pediatric examinees for both clinical and research samples. Sensitivity was relatively strong (0.68-0.70), although only two studies reported sensitivity rates. A supplemental review of the literature corroborated these findings, revealing that traditional adult-based TOMM cutoffs are supported in most pediatric settings. However, limited research exists on the impact of very young age, extremely low cognitive functioning, and varying clinical diagnoses.
CONCLUSIONS
The TOMM, at traditional adult cutoffs, has strong specificity as a performance validity test in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. This meta-analysis found that specificity values in children are comparable to those of adults. Areas for further research are discussed.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cognition; Humans; Malingering; Memory Disorders; Memory and Learning Tests; Neuropsychological Tests
PubMed: 33047780
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acaa075 -
Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie 2022We describe a case of a patient with a functional coma ,and give a systemic review of literature. Functional coma is an extremely rare disorder with only 21 described...
We describe a case of a patient with a functional coma ,and give a systemic review of literature. Functional coma is an extremely rare disorder with only 21 described cases in the literature. The disease is linked to a conversion disorder or a dissociative disorder and is predominantly found in females. Predisposing factors are a history of sexual or physical abuse, psychiatric disorders, previous episodes of functional coma, and recent surgery with general anesthesia. Several clinical signs are suggestive for the diagnosis, however none of them is sufficiently sensitive or specific. Therefore, functional coma remains an exclusion diagnosis. Vital signs must be normal, just as a routine blood examination, an electroencephalogram and imaging of the central nervous system. The most important differential diagnosis are catatonia, factitious disorder, and malingering. Spontaneous recovery can be expected after a duration of about 45 minutes to 4 days.
Topics: Female; Humans; Catatonia; Coma; Conversion Disorder; Diagnosis, Differential; Dissociative Disorders; Factitious Disorders
PubMed: 36583281
DOI: No ID Found -
Law and Human Behavior Feb 2022This systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of translated versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of translated versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in detecting response distortion (i.e., symptom exaggeration and minimization), a central concern in forensic assessment.
HYPOTHESES
We hypothesized that translated versions of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF would generate significantly weaker effect sizes in detecting response distortion than those observed with English-language studies.
METHOD
We identified 26 studies, representing seven language translations of the MMPI-2 (k = 20) and two of the MMPI-2-RF (k = 6). We calculated effect sizes (Cohen's ds) based on the mean score difference between honest and nongenuine responders for each study on each symptom exaggeration (e.g., F/F-r, Fp/Fp-r) and minimization (e.g., L/L-r, K/K-r) scale examined, along with mean effect size estimates (Hedges' g) for the Spanish and Italian translations (no other translation had more than two published studies).
RESULTS
Spanish-language studies generally produced large (d ≥ 1.25) to very large (d ≥ 1.75) effect sizes when detecting both symptom exaggeration and minimization. Italian-language studies generally produced small to moderate effect sizes when detecting symptom exaggeration and predominately moderate (d ≤ 1.25) effect sizes when detecting minimization. Significant variability within and across scales was observed in both Spanish-language and Italian-language studies. Most studies utilizing a translated version of the MMPI-2 other than Spanish or Italian produced very large (d ≥ 1.75) effect sizes when detecting symptom exaggeration and weaker (d ≤ 1.00) effect sizes when detecting minimization.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis demonstrated effect sizes that overlapped with those observed in English-language studies. Although clearly preliminary, given the limited published research to date, these data suggest that the MMPI instruments retain some utility in detecting response distortion when translated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Humans; MMPI; Malingering; Reproducibility of Results; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 35073117
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000469