When 10 is enough: Errors on the first 10 items of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMMe10) and administration time predict freestanding performance validity tests (PVTs) and underperformance on memory measures

Comparing the Independent and Aggregated Accuracy of Trial 1 and the First 10 TOMM Items for Detecting Invalid Neuropsychological Test Performance Across Civilian and Veteran Clinical Samples

“…The psychometric strength of using TOMM T1 on its own as a robust measure of performance validity has been well-established across a variety of clinical settings and methodological approaches (Denning, 2012, 2021; Hilsabeck et al, 2011; Kraemer et al, 2020; Martin et al, 2020; Webber et al, 2018). Specifically, T1, when used alone, has demonstrated utility among community volunteers, veterans, civilians, older adults, and criminal forensic referrals.…”

“…The TOMM is one of the most frequently administered and widely researched of all PVTs, with strong empirical support across a wide array of clinical and medicolegal populations (e.g., Martin et al, 2020). Although the standard administration of this test involves two trials, T1 has been shown to have robust utility as an independent PVT with accuracy rates that match the more traditionally used T2 (e.g., Cohen et al, 2021; Denning, 2012; 2021; Fazio et al, 2017; Greve et al, 2006; Martin et al, 2020; Kraemer et al, 2020; Webber et al, 2018). The use of the first ten items of T1 (T1e10) has also received growing research support as an even briefer measure (Denning, 2021; Grabyan et al, 2018; Kulas et al, 2014; Ovsiew et al, 2021).…”

“…Although the standard administration of this test involves two trials, T1 has been shown to have robust utility as an independent PVT with accuracy rates that match the more traditionally used T2 (e.g., Cohen et al, 2021; Denning, 2012; 2021; Fazio et al, 2017; Greve et al, 2006; Martin et al, 2020; Kraemer et al, 2020; Webber et al, 2018). The use of the first ten items of T1 (T1e10) has also received growing research support as an even briefer measure (Denning, 2021; Grabyan et al, 2018; Kulas et al, 2014; Ovsiew et al, 2021). For this study, all patients were administered T1, and subsequent TOMM trials were not routinely given.…”

“…However, the full TOMM can take upward of 15–20 minutes to administer, leading to an exploration of abbreviated versions such as performance on TOMM Trial 1 (T1; e.g., O’Bryant et al, 2007) and number of errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1e10; Denning, 2012). Numerous studies have supported T1’s robust classification rates for identifying invalid performance when used as an independent PVT in clinical and forensic contexts (e.g., Cohen et al, 2021; Denning, 2012; 2021; Fazio et al, 2017; Kraemer et al, 2020; Ovsiew et al, 2021; Webber et al, 2018). In fact, several studies have shown that T1 has equivalent accuracy and associated psychometric properties as the traditional TOMM Trial 2 (T2), even though T1 halves the test administration time burden (Greve et al, 2006; Martin et al, 2020; O’Bryant et al, 2008; Ovsiew et al, 2021; Schroeder et al, 2019).…”

“…Grabyan and colleagues (2018) assessed concordance between the T1e10, T1, T2, and two criterion PVTs (i.e., Word Memory Test [WMT; Green, 2003] and Reliable Digit Span [RDS; Greiffenstein et al, 1994]) among veterans on an inpatient epilepsy monitoring unit and found that T1e10 ≥2 predicted failure on T1 and/or T2 with .83–.92 sensitivity, whereas sensitivity was considerably lower (i.e., .32–.45) for predicting failure on one or both independent criterion PVTs. Most recently, Denning (2021) reported that a T1e10 score ≥2 had robust sensitivity (0.89) and specificity (0.96) for identifying pass/fail on T1; and T1e10 ≥3 accurately predicted passing/failing MSVT, with sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.92.…”