A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Utility of the Test of Memory Malingering in Pediatric Examinees

H Clark · Phillip K. Martin · Hayrettin Okut · Ryan W. Schroeder

11 citations0/0 files storedArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Deception detection and forensic psychology Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study 2009American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering 2005Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessityNAN Policy & Planning Committee 2015Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part II. Statistical Methods of Meta-Analysis 2010Efficacy of cognitive–behavioural therapy and other psychological treatments for adult depression: meta-analytic study of publication bias 2000The Test of Memory Malingering 2 (TOMM-2)2015Neuropsychologists’ Validity Testing Beliefs and Practices: A Survey of North American Professionals 2017Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews

Cited by

2021Performance on the Memory Validity Profile in a mixed clinic-referred pediatric sample 2021New cut-score to improve performance of the Memory Validity Profile (MVP) in heterogenous clinical populations 2024A preliminary investigation of the utility of the Word Memory Test Immediate Recognition trial as a screener for noncredible performance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.