Tombaugh's Literature Review: The Test Of Memory Malilingering

1680 Words4 Pages

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) originated by Tombaugh in 1996. It is an actuarial assessment that is designed to anchor, support, and enhance clinical skills. In the acturial design, professionals are required to gather thorough and accurate information about the individual being tested. Thus assisting in developing a strong foundation for a client being tested. Through his literature review and research in neuropsychology and cognitive psychology, Tombaugh found that the best test to assist in the detection of memory malingering is a recognition test. Furthermore, his research found that any test designed to detect individuals who malinger symptoms, should include the following: The test should be sensitive to the feigning of memory deficits; it should be insensitive to the effects of demographic variables, neuropsychological disorders including traumatic brain injury, and affective disorders like depression; The percieved difficulty of the test should be greater than the actual difficulty of the test; It should have high face validity; It should be able to be used universally (Tombaugh, 2002). Therefore, Tombaugh constructed a 50-item recognition test designed for professionals to distinguish from people who truly have a memory impairment and those who are faking a memory loss for some type of compensation or financial gain (Rees, Tombaugh, Gansler, & Moczynski, 1998). The TOMM was validated over four years and a total of 636 participants. Normative testing was divided into 2 stages. In the first stage, the stimulus materials and an initial validation with a non-cognitively impaired sample was developed. In this stage 405 volunteers were administered the TOMM. The ages widely ranged from 16 to 84 years old (M=54.8, ...

... middle of paper ...

...pinion on the neuropsycholgists behalf. Other steps that should have been taken, was to norm his scores with his age population and interpret scores more cautiously to deem him results as accurate. Either way, the judge allowed the expert testimony under the Frye and Daubert standards. Both the Frye and Daubert criteria requires that the evidence contain empirical testing, is accepted by a large part of that scientific community, is published in peer-reviewed articles, and has a known error rate. In this case, although the TOMM was not used, the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (personality test) was used and accepted under the standards. Overall, The TOMM may be a useful instrument when used in collaboration with other tests that also test for malingering such as the MMPI 2 but may be questionable when used alone to conclude an opinion about malingering.

Open Document