The influence of effort on neuropsychological performance in children: is performance on the TOMM indicative of neuropsychological ability?

Utility of abbreviated versions of the test of memory malingering in children with traumatic brain injury

We evaluated the classification accuracy of two abbreviated versions of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in prediction of results on the full-length instrument in a sample of 126 children who were evaluated within 1-12 months after traumatic brain injury. Both a version based on administration of Trial 1 and a version based on administration of only the first 10 items of Trial 1 had acceptable specificity (i.e., > .90) and sensitivity (i.e., > .60) with regard to prediction of pass/fail results on the complete TOMM. Failure on the TOMM suppressed performance on measures of processing speed that were otherwise sensitive to severity of traumatic brain injury. We conclude that these abbreviated versions of the TOMM can be used in clinical practice with children with traumatic brain injury, at the discretion of the neuropsychologist.

Effort, symptom validity testing, performance validity testing and traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

To understand the neurocognitive effects of brain injury, valid neuropsychological test findings are paramount.

REVIEW

This review examines the research on what has been referred to a symptom validity testing (SVT). Above a designated cut-score signifies a 'passing' SVT performance which is likely the best indicator of valid neuropsychological test findings. Likewise, substantially below cut-point performance that nears chance or is at chance signifies invalid test performance. Significantly below chance is the sine qua non neuropsychological indicator for malingering. However, the interpretative problems with SVT performance below the cut-point yet far above chance are substantial, as pointed out in this review. This intermediate, border-zone performance on SVT measures is where substantial interpretative challenges exist. Case studies are used to highlight the many areas where additional research is needed. Historical perspectives are reviewed along with the neurobiology of effort. Reasons why performance validity testing (PVT) may be better than the SVT term are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in neuroimaging techniques may be key in better understanding the meaning of border zone SVT failure. The review demonstrates the problems with rigidity in interpretation with established cut-scores. A better understanding of how certain types of neurological, neuropsychiatric and/or even test conditions may affect SVT performance is needed.