{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022641509433962263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014150943396226414, 'mean_word_length': 5.56656346749226, '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}}
Not all performance validity tests are created equal: The role of recollection and familiarity in the Test of Memory Malingering and Word Memory Test

ABSTRACT Introduction: The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the Word Memory Test (WMT) are both performance validity tests (PVTs) that use a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) recognition memory format. Several studies have reported that these tests are susceptible to cognitive impairment and that the WMT is more susceptible than the TOMM. The current study explored components of recognition memory (i.e., conscious recollection and familiarity) underlying the TOMM and WMT to identify factors that make them susceptible and resilient to cognitive impairment. Method: Fifty-four nonclinical undergraduate research participants were administered the TOMM and WMT while providing introspective judgments about their recognition memory using the remember/know/guess procedure. In addition, half of participants were administered dual-task interference, a manipulation intended to reduce recollection, during these tests, while the other half completed these tests without interference. Standard cutoffs on the TOMM and WMT were explored, as well as alternative cutoffs based on TOMM Trial 1 scores. Results: The WMT was more impacted by dual-task interference than standard TOMM cutoff trials, while alternative TOMM cutoff trials were equally impacted by dual-task interference relative to the WMT. Dual-task interference reduced recollection on these tests, but spared familiarity. Standard TOMM trials and the WMT were relatively comparable on levels of recollection, but familiarity contributed more to the TOMM than to the WMT. Alternative TOMM trials possessed lower familiarity and recollection than standard TOMM trials and lower recollection than the WMT. Conclusions: Reduced recollection places examinees at risk of failing the TOMM and WMT, while familiarity contributes to the relative resilience of the standard TOMM. Future development of 2AFC recognition memory PVTs should attempt to maximize the contribution of familiarity to their completion.