-
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 -
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 -
Assessment Mar 2012Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a heavily researched symptom validity test with a recent literature review yielding more than 20 studies ranging in dates from 1994 to 2011.... (Review)
Review
Reliable Digit Span (RDS) is a heavily researched symptom validity test with a recent literature review yielding more than 20 studies ranging in dates from 1994 to 2011. Unfortunately, limitations within some of the research minimize clinical generalizability. This systematic review and cross-validation study was conducted to address these limitations, thus increasing the measure's clinical utility. Sensitivity and specificity rates were calculated for the ≤6 and ≤7 cutoffs when data were globally combined and divided by clinical groups. The cross-validation of specific diagnostic groups was consistent with the data reported in the literature. Overall, caution should be used when utilizing the ≤7 cutoff in all clinical groups and when utilizing the ≤6 cutoff in the following groups: cerebrovascular accident, severe memory disorders, mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and English as a second language. Additional limitations and cautions are provided.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Brain Injuries; Cognition Disorders; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Malingering; Nervous System Diseases; Neuropsychological Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 22156721
DOI: 10.1177/1073191111428764 -
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 -
The Clinical Neuropsychologist Jan 2017Computerized neuropsychological assessment of concussion has rapidly expanded and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is among the most commonly... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Computerized neuropsychological assessment of concussion has rapidly expanded and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is among the most commonly used measures in this domain. ImPACT was primarily developed for use with athletic populations but continues to expand beyond athletics to settings such as the workplace and schools where motivational dispositions may vary. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of existing research investigating the prevalence of invalid baseline results and the effectiveness of ImPACT's embedded invalidity indicators in detecting suspect effort.
METHOD
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in order to systematically structure a search across four databases and analysis of studies that presented data related to the prevalence of invalid performance and/or the effectiveness of ImPACT's embedded invalidity indicators.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies included prevalence rates of invalid performances or examined the effectiveness of ImPACT's invalidity indicators. Of the 17 studies, 12 included prevalence rates of invalid baseline results; and across this group of studies (after removing an outlier), the weighted prevalence rate of invalid baseline results was 6%. Four of the 17 studies examined the effectiveness of ImPACT's embedded invalidity indicators. ImPACT's embedded invalidity indicators correctly identified suboptimal effort in approximately 80% of individuals instructed to perform poorly and avoid detection ('coached') or instructed to perform poorly ('naïve').
CONCLUSIONS
These findings raise a number of issues pertaining to the use of ImPACT. Invalid performance incidence may increase with large group versus individual administration, use in nonclinical settings, and among those with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder or learning disability. Additionally, the older desktop version of ImPACT appears to be associated with a higher rate of invalid performances than the online version. Although ImPACT's embedded invalidity indicators detect invalid performance at a rate of 6% on average, known group validity studies suggest that these measures miss invalid performance approximately 20% of the time when individuals purposefully underperform.
Topics: Brain Concussion; Cognition; Humans; Malingering; Neuropsychological Tests; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 27687890
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2016.1220622 -
The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2014We meta-analytically reviewed studies that used the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychopathology. We present weighted mean... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We meta-analytically reviewed studies that used the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychopathology. We present weighted mean diagnostic accuracy and predictive power indices in various populations, based on 31 studies, including 61 subsamples and 4009 SIMS protocols. In addition, we provide normative data of patients, claimants, defendants, nonclinical adults, and various experimental feigners, based on 41 studies, including 125 subsamples and 4810 SIMS protocols. We conclude that the SIMS (1) is able to differentiate well between instructed feigners and honest responders; (2) generates heightened scores in groups that are known to have a raised prevalence of feigning (e.g., offenders who claim crime-related amnesia); (3) may overestimate feigning in patients who suffer from schizophrenia, intellectual disability, or psychogenic non-epileptic seizures; and (4) is fairly robust against coaching. The diagnostic power of the traditional cut scores of the SIMS (i.e., > 14 and > 16) is not so much limited by their sensitivity—which is satisfactory—but rather by their substandard specificity. This, however, can be worked around by combining the SIMS with other symptom validity measures and by raising the cut score, although the latter solution sacrifices sensitivity for specificity.
Topics: Humans; Interview, Psychological; Malingering; Neuropsychological Tests; Personality Inventory; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 25494444
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2014.984763 -
Psychological Assessment Nov 2017The cross-cultural validity of feigning instruments and cut-scores is a critical concern for forensic mental health clinicians. This systematic review evaluated feigning... (Review)
Review
The cross-cultural validity of feigning instruments and cut-scores is a critical concern for forensic mental health clinicians. This systematic review evaluated feigning classification accuracy and effect sizes across instruments and languages by summarizing 45 published peer-reviewed articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations conducted in Europe, Asia, and North America using linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples. The most common psychiatric symptom measures used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples included the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The most frequently studied cognitive effort measures included the Word Recognition Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Rey 15-item Memory test. The classification accuracy of these measures is compared and the implications of this research literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
Topics: Humans; Malingering; Neuropsychological Tests; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
PubMed: 28080105
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000438 -
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 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica May 2003The aim of this study was to systematically examine ancient Roman and Greek texts to identify descriptions of schizophrenia and related disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to systematically examine ancient Roman and Greek texts to identify descriptions of schizophrenia and related disorders.
METHOD
Material from Greek and Roman literature dating from the 5th Century BC to the beginning of the 2nd Century AD was systematically reviewed for symptoms of mental illness. DSM IV criteria were applied in order to identify material related to schizophrenia and related disorders.
RESULTS
The general public had an awareness of psychotic disorders, because the symptoms were described in works of fiction and in historical accounts of malingering. There were isolated instances of text related to psychotic symptoms in the residents of ancient Rome and Greece, but no written material describing a condition that would meet modern diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.
CONCLUSION
In contrast to many other psychiatric disorders that are represented in ancient Greek and Roman literature, there were no descriptions of individuals with schizophrenia in the material assessed in this review.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder; Greek World; History, Ancient; Humans; Medicine in Literature; Psychotic Disorders; Roman World; Schizophrenia; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 12752027
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00053.x -
Child Neuropsychology : a Journal on... 2015The assessment of response validity is now considered an important and necessary component of neuropsychological evaluations. One way for assessing response validity is... (Review)
Review
The assessment of response validity is now considered an important and necessary component of neuropsychological evaluations. One way for assessing response validity is with performance validity tests (PVTs), which measure the degree of effort applied to testing to achieve optimal performance. Numerous studies have shown that normal and neurologically impaired children are capable of passing certain free-standing PVTs using adult cutoffs. Despite this, PVT use appears to be more common in adults compared to children. The overall purpose of this systematic review is to provide the reader with a general overview of the existing literature on PVTs in children. As part of this review, goals are to inform the reader why PVT use is not as prevalent in children compared to adults, to discuss why PVTs and related methods are important in pediatric cognitive evaluations, and to discuss practical limitations and future directions.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cognition Disorders; Disability Evaluation; Female; Humans; Malingering; Memory Disorders; Neuropsychological Tests; Reference Standards
PubMed: 24344790
DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2013.864383