{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0492676431424767, 'fraction_numerical': 0.039280958721704395, 'mean_word_length': 5.159836065573771, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A single error is one too many: Examining alternative cutoffs on Trial 2 of the TOMM

ABSTRACT Objective: This study investigated the potential of alternative, more liberal cutoffs on Trial 2 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to improve classification accuracy relative to the standard cutoffs (≤44). Method: The sample consisted of 152 patients (49.3% male) with psychiatric conditions (PSY) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) referred for neuropsychological assessment in a medico-legal setting (MAge = 44.4, MEducation = 11.9 years). Classification accuracy for various TOMM Trial 2 cutoffs was computed against three criterion measures. Results: Patients with TBI failed TOMM Trial 2 cutoffs at higher rates than patients with PSY. Trial 2 ≤49 achieved acceptable combinations of sensitivity (0.38–0.67) and specificity (0.89–0.96) in all but one comparison group. Trial 2 ≤48 improved specificity (0.94–0.98) with minimal loss in sensitivity. The standard cutoff (≤44) disproportionally traded sensitivity (0.15–0.50) for specificity (0.96–1.00).Conclusions: One error on TOMM Trial 2 constitutes sufficient evidence to question the credibility of a response set. However, the confidence in classifying a score as invalid continues to increase with each additional error. Even at the most liberal conceivable cutoff (≤49), the TOMM detected only about half of the patients who failed other criterion measures. Therefore, it should never be used in isolation to determine performance validity.