Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Delain, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Porath, Y. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Delain, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Porath, Y. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Use of the TOMM in a Criminal Court Forensic Assessment Setting

Sheryl L. Delain

Kent State University

Kathleen P. Stafford

Court Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic, Akron, Ohio, Kent State University

Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Kent State University

Use of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a criminal court forensic assessment setting was examined. Results indicated that those initially suspected of cognitive malingering and, thus, administered the TOMM, differed from others in this setting in ways that are consistent with descriptions of suspected cognitive malingerers in the existing literature. These defendants’TOMMscores were also consistent with those reported in samples characterized by relatively high base rates of cognitive malingering. Defendants whose TOMMscores met the recommended criteria for detecting malingering (n = 29) were more likely to report a previous head injury, to be viewed as only marginally cooperative or uncooperative during the course of the evaluation, and to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder than those who did not generate suspicious TOMM scores.

Key Words: forensic • malingering • memory • TOMM

Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 4, 370-381 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103259156
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AssessmentHome page
R. I. Frederick and S. C. Bowden
The Test Validation Summary
Assessment, September 1, 2009; 16(3): 215 - 236.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
S. L. Drob, K. B. Meehan, and S. E. Waxman
Clinical and Conceptual Problems in the Attribution of Malingering in Forensic Evaluations
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, March 1, 2009; 37(1): 98 - 106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
A. Duncan
The Impact of Cognitive and Psychiatric Impairment of Psychotic Disorders on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)
Assessment, June 1, 2005; 12(2): 123 - 129.
[Abstract] [PDF]