Suppr超能文献

刑事法医样本中记忆伪装测试与词语记忆测试的性能比较。

Comparison of performance of the test of memory malingering and word memory test in a criminal forensic sample.

作者信息

Fazio Rachel L, Sanders James Forrest, Denney Robert L

机构信息

The School of Professional Psychology, Forest Institute, Springfield, MO, USA

The School of Professional Psychology, Forest Institute, Springfield, MO, USA.

出版信息

Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2015 Jun;30(4):293-301. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acv024. Epub 2015 May 5.

Abstract

Compared with the amount of neuropsychological literature surrounding response bias in civil litigation, there is little regarding criminal cases. This study adds to the criminal forensic neuropsychological literature by comparing the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Word Memory Test (WMT) in a criminal forensic setting utilizing a criterion-groups design. Subjects were classified into two groups based on their performance on at least two other freestanding performance validity tests. The WMT demonstrated good sensitivity (95.1%) but poor specificity (68.4%) when Genuine Memory Impaired Profiles (GMIPs) were not considered. Inclusion of GMIPs reduced the sensitivity to 56.1% but increased the specificity to 94.7%. The TOMM evidenced better sensitivity but poorer specificity than the WMT with GMIPs. Conjoint use of the tests was also considered. Receiver operating characteristics and other classification statistics for each measure are presented. Results support the use of these measures in a criminal forensic population.

摘要

与围绕民事诉讼中反应偏差的神经心理学文献数量相比,关于刑事案件的文献很少。本研究通过在刑事法医环境中使用标准组设计比较记忆伪装测验(TOMM)和词语记忆测验(WMT),为刑事法医神经心理学文献增添了内容。根据受试者在至少两项其他独立的表现效度测试中的表现,将他们分为两组。当不考虑真性记忆受损剖面图(GMIPs)时,WMT表现出良好的敏感性(95.1%)但特异性较差(68.4%)。纳入GMIPs后,敏感性降至56.1%,但特异性提高到94.7%。在考虑GMIPs的情况下,TOMM的敏感性优于WMT,但特异性较差。还考虑了联合使用这两项测试。给出了每项测量的接受者操作特征和其他分类统计数据。结果支持在刑事法医人群中使用这些测量方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验