Stratified performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is associated with differential responding on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)

被引:16
|
作者
Whiteside, Douglas M. [1 ]
Hunt, Isaac [2 ]
Choate, Alyssa [3 ]
Caraher, Kristen [3 ]
Basso, Michael R. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Rehabil Med, Neuropsychol Lab, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] St Marys Hosp, Dept Neurol, Essentia Hlth, Duluth, MN USA
[3] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Dept Psychiat, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Psychiat & Psychol, Rochester, NY USA
关键词
Performance validity test; Personality Assessment Inventory; symptom validity; Test of Memory Malingering; non-credible performance; TRAUMATIC BRAIN-INJURY; SYMPTOM VALIDITY; BELIEFS; SCALES;
D O I
10.1080/13803395.2019.1695749
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Introduction: This study evaluated symptom endorsement patterns in participants at various stratified performance levels on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). It was hypothesized that the lowest stratum (chance performance and below) would have the most pathological (i.e., elevated item endorsement) responding on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity and clinical scales. This study was primarily a replication of previous work with emphasis on the PAI scales and consideration of varying degrees of performance on TOMM Trial 2. Methods: Participants were 760 (54% female, 85.4% Caucasian, mean age = 42.01 (SD = 15.89), mean education = 13.55 (SD = 2.35)) consecutively referred neuropsychological outpatients who completed the TOMM and PAI. Participants were placed in one of 5 stratified TOMM Trial 2 performance level groups (High Pass, Low Pass, High Fail, Low Fail, and Chance). No significant differences were found between the demographic variables except for referral source, which was overrepresented in the Chance group relative to the other groups. Results: Due to the highly skewed nature of TOMM Trial 2, Spearman rank order correlations were calculated for the 5 stratified levels of TOMM performance and all the main PAI scales. The NIM, SOM, DEP, ANX, SCZ and SUI scales had significant correlations, so a series of One-way ANOVAs were calculated to examine these scales at different TOMM stratified performance levels. Results indicated that the Chance group had the highest level of responding on all scales, with NIM, SOM, DEP, SCZ and SUI having mean elevations above the clinical cutoff (T = 70). Conclusions: Results were consistent with previous pass-fail PVT research, but extended earlier research to provide evidence that Chance performance group had more pathological PAI responding. The results provide preliminary evidence to support the notion that patients who fail PVTs at different levels do not have the same characteristics.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 141
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [21] Differential Prediction of Personality Assessment Inventory Malingering Index and Roger's Discriminant Function Scales Utilizing Personality Assessment Inventory Clinical, Validity, Interpersonal, and Treatment Response Scales
    Hahn-Ketter, A.
    Juliano, A. C.
    Cohen, N.
    Whiteside, D. M.
    CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2012, 26 (03) : 401 - 402
  • [22] The Relationship between Validity Indicators of the Personality Assessment Inventory and the Word Memory Test
    Morgan, K.
    Daniel, M.
    Conley, J.
    Shean, M.
    Wyman-Chick, K.
    Andersen, S.
    ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 30 (06) : 591 - 591
  • [23] The Impact of Visuospatial Memory Impairment on Rey 15-Item Test and Test of Memory Malingering Performance: Implications for Performance Validity Assessment
    Carter, D.
    Ovsiew, G.
    Rhoads, T.
    Resch, Z.
    Soble, J.
    ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2020, 35 (06) : 1016 - 1016
  • [24] Correction to: Further Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 Performance Validity Index: Examination of False Positives and Convergent Validity
    Troy A. Webber
    K. Chase Bailey
    W. Alexander Alverson
    Edan A. Critchfield
    Kathleen M. Bain
    Johanna M. Messerly
    Justin J. F. O’Rourke
    Joshua W. Kirton
    Chrystal Fullen
    Janice C. Marceaux
    Jason R. Soble
    Psychological Injury and Law, 2019, 12 : 88 - 89
  • [25] Assessment of Psychiatric Symptoms with The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) Patients with Credible Performance
    Semla, M.
    Parikh, S.
    Whiteside, D. M.
    Luu, H.
    Rice, L.
    Basso, M.
    CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2015, 29 (03) : 335 - 336
  • [26] Prevalence of and Risk Factors Associated with Psychopathological Symptoms in Uruguayan Adolescents, Using the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-A)
    Machado, Ana Ines
    Arbach, Karin
    Bobbio, Antonella
    Parra, Alfredo
    MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 9 (03): : 1 - 32
  • [27] Concordance Between Standard and Abbreviated Administrations of the Test of Memory Malingering: Implications for Streamlining Performance Validity Assessment
    Gabriel P. Ovsiew
    Dustin A. Carter
    Tasha Rhoads
    Zachary J. Resch
    Kyle J. Jennette
    Jason R. Soble
    Psychological Injury and Law, 2021, 14 : 134 - 143
  • [28] Concordance Between Standard and Abbreviated Administrations of the Test of Memory Malingering: Implications for Streamlining Performance Validity Assessment
    Ovsiew, Gabriel P.
    Carter, Dustin A.
    Rhoads, Tasha
    Resch, Zachary J.
    Jennette, Kyle J.
    Soble, Jason R.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY & LAW, 2021, 14 (02): : 134 - 143
  • [29] Effects of Covid-19 Emergency and Associated Lockdown Policies on the Normative Expectations for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS)
    Aschieri, Filippo
    Pascarella, Giulia
    Milesi, Aurora
    Giromini, Luciano
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 2024, 106 (04) : 448 - 458
  • [30] Relationship of personality assessment inventory (PAI) over-reporting scales to performance validity testing in a military neuropsychological sample
    Morris, Nicole M.
    Ingram, Paul B.
    Armistead-Jehle, Patrick
    MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 34 (04) : 484 - 493