Powell Matthew R, Gfeller Jeffrey D, Hendricks Bryan L, Sharland Michael
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004 Aug;19(5):693-702. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2004.04.001.
The ability of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) to detect feigned-memory impairment was explored. The TOMM was administered to three groups: (a) a control group instructed to perform optimally, (b) a symptom-coached group instructed to feign memory problems after being educated about traumatic brain injury symptomatology, and (c) a test-coached group instructed to feign memory problems after being educated about test-taking strategies to avoid detection. The recommended cutoff scores (Tombaugh, 1996) on Trial 2 and the Retention Trial produced overall classification accuracy rates of 96%, with high levels of sensitivity and specificity. Although the symptom-coached group performed more poorly on the TOMM relative to the test-coached group, the test was equally sensitive in detecting suboptimal effort across the different coaching paradigms.
本研究探讨了记忆伪装测验(TOMM;Tombaugh,1996)检测伪装记忆损伤的能力。TOMM被施测于三组:(a)被指示要尽力表现的对照组;(b)在接受创伤性脑损伤症状学教育后被指示伪装记忆问题的症状引导组;(c)在接受避免被检测出的应试策略教育后被指示伪装记忆问题的测验引导组。在第二次试验和保留试验中,推荐的临界分数(Tombaugh,1996)产生了总体分类准确率为96%,具有高敏感性和特异性。尽管症状引导组在TOMM上的表现相对于测验引导组更差,但该测验在检测不同引导范式下的不佳表现时同样敏感。