Validity Indicator Profile

Detection of inadequate effort on the California Verbal Learning Test-Second edition: Forced choice recognition and critical item analysis

“…With regard to sensitivity and specificity values for the TOMM, previous studies indicate sensitivity rates ranging between 77% and 100% in simulation studies of malingering, with corresponding specificity rates all at 100% (Rees et al, 1998;Tombaugh, 1996Tombaugh, , 1997. With regard to sensitivity and specificity of the VIP, the original validation study indicates sensitivity rates of the Verbal subtest at 67%, the Nonverbal subtest at 74%, either subtest at 78%, and both subtests at 63%; corresponding specificity rates were 83% for the VIP Verbal subtest, 86% for the Nonverbal subtest, 78% for either subtest, and 93% for both subtests (Frederick, 1997).…”

“…As discussed previously, any comparison between a gold standard measure and a candidate measure will be limited by the ultimate sensitivity and specificity values of the gold standard. Although both the TOMM and VIP have acceptable sensitivity and specificity values, a subset of individuals exhibiting inadequate effort are missed by both measures in previous studies (Frederick, 1997;Rees et al, 1998;Tombaugh, 1996Tombaugh, , 1997. Other measures, such as the Word Memory Test (Green et al, 1996), may offer increased agreement with the FCR and CIA, due to reported higher sensitivity rates (Gervais et al, 2004).…”

“…We used two free-standing measures of effort: the TOMM (Tombaugh, 1996) and the VIP (Frederick, 1997) for determination of inadequate effort. We chose these two measures for their psychometric properties, their accuracy in identification of inadequate effort, and their acceptance by practitioners and professionals in forensic contexts (Vallabhajosula & van Gorp, 2001).…”

“…In clinical populations, in which inadequate effort as a result of secondary gain is presumably less prevalent, the base rate of cases in which inadequate effort is an issue has been estimated to be 2 to 7% (Schretlen, 1988) to approximately 8% (Mittenberg et al, 2002). Base rates for inadequate effort among litigating populations, however, have been estimated to range from 8.5 to 14% (Frederick et al, 1994), 18 to 33% (Binder, 1993), 40% (Larrabee, 2003), and as high as 64% (Heaton et al, 1978), with a survey of clinicians' estimates of inadequate effort ranging from 19 to 30% (Mittenberg et al, 2002) To address the problem of inadequate effort, numerous freestanding tests have been developed specifically to detect inadequate effort: the Rey 15-Item Test (Arnett et al, 1995;Lee et al, 1992), the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP; Frederick, 1997), the Computerized Assessment of Response Bias (CARB: Conder et al, 1992), and the Word Memory Test (WMT; Green et al, 1996), among others. Whereas a subset of these instruments has proven to be valid and reliable in measuring inadequate effort, problems remain in adequate detection both due to test characteristics (Vallabhajosula & van Gorp, 2001) as well as to increasing availability of information about the measures and methods used to assess effort available to evaluees (Bauer & McCaffrey, 2006;Ruiz et al, 2002).…”

A Survey of Psychological Test Use Patterns Among Forensic Psychologists

“…The most frequently used instrument in this category is the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992), closely followed by the Test of Memory and Malin-FORENSIC TESTS 89 (Andrews & Bonta, 1995) 79 7 gering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996). The remaining tests in this category, in order of their TMs, are the Validity Indicator Profile (Frederick, 1997), the Rey-15 (Rey, 1964), the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (Miller, 2001), the Paulhus Deception scales (Paulhus, 1984), and the Portland Digit Recognition Test (Binder, 1993). Finally, Table 11 presents the instruments most frequently used by 76 respondents in their evaluation of children and adolescents including child custody assessments.…”