Date of Award




Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)


Department of Psychology


Clinical Psychology

Content Description

1 online resource (v, 76 pages)

Dissertation/Thesis Chair

Robert J McCaffrey

Committee Members

Julie K Lynch, Marcus Crede


Effort, Item Analysis, Neuropsychological Assessment, Performance Validity, Symptom Validity Tests, Test of Memory Malingering, Neuropsychological tests, Memory, Clinical psychology

Subject Categories

Clinical Psychology


The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was once purported to be among the "most frequently administered" neuropsychological tests of performance validity (Slick, Tan, Strauss & Hultsch, 2004). Much research involving clinical patients as well as individuals involved in medico-legal cases, however, has revealed that the TOMM may not perform as well as initially conceived during the test's early validation studies. For this reason, other performance validity tests have likely surpassed the TOMM; however, work is currently underway to increase the test's sensitivity to performance invalidity, usually through differential cutoff selection. The purpose of this study was to collect data on "true chance" rates of responding for the Correct items and verify if rates of responding are indeed at expected (25/50). Because the test is an excellent candidate for redesign, the current study also extends the current literature on the TOMM by conducting a descriptive and inferential item analysis to identify the best item pairs to target should the test be redesigned in the future. Two groups of undergraduates (N=123) were administered "research" versions of the TOMM1 that departed slightly from the standard procedures. Results showed that "chance" responding was indeed at 25/50, but a considerable number of item pairs selected at rates that differed significantly from expected levels. These pairs are discussed given the potential for test redesign.