The Efficiency and Accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, Errors on the First 10 Items of The Test of Memory Malingering, and Five Embedded Measures in Predicting Invalid Test Performance
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 29 (2014) 729– 730
Corrigendum
The Efficiency and Accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1,
Errors on the First 10 Items of The Test of Memory Malingering, and Five
Embedded Measures in Predicting Invalid Test Performance
John H. Denning*
Mental Health Care Line, Department of Psychology, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Alvin C. York Veterans Affairs Hospital, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
*Corresponding author at: Mental Health Care Line, Department of Psychology, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Alvin C. York Veterans Affairs Hospital,
Murfreesboro, TN 37129, USA Tel: +1-615-225-3923; fax: +1-615-225-6361.
E-mail address: (J.H. Denning).
The cut score showing the greatest accuracy for TOMMe10 is ≥2 errors and not ≥1 errors as previously noted in the final manuscript and tables. Table 8 showing the revised cut off of ≥2 errors is provided along with the respective PPV and NPV at various
base rates. The sensitivity and specificity for ≥2 errors is as follows: SN ¼ .71, and SP ¼ .93.
Table 11 in the manuscript should also be slightly revised. The cut off for TOMMe10 should be ≥2 errors, but the accuracy
statistics remain unchanged in that table (SN ¼ 75.5, SP ¼ 94.6).
I apologize for these errors.
Table 8. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of TOMMe10 in predicting passing or failing the MSVT
Cut Score
0
≥1
≥2
≥3
≥4
≥5
≥6
≥7
≥9
≥10
SN
1.00
0.85
0.71
0.51
0.35
0.14
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.00
SP
0.00
0.78
0.93
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
Base rate (0.40)
Base rate (0.25)
Base rate (0.10)
PPV
NPV
PPV
NPV
PPV
NPV
0.40
0.72
0.87
0.92
0.96
0.90
0.84
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.83
0.75
0.70
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.25
0.56
0.77
0.85
0.92
0.82
0.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.91
0.86
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.10
0.30
0.53
0.65
0.80
0.61
0.47
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.97
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
Notes: Embolden values indicate cut scores with the greatest accuracy based on binary logistic regression analyses; SN ¼ sensitivity; SP ¼ specificity;
PPV ¼ positive predictive value; NPV ¼ negative predictive value.
# The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: .
doi:10.1093/arclin/acu051
730
Corrigendum
Table 11. Accuracy of TOMM1, TOMMe10, and the five embedded measures regression formula after removing those with a diagnosis of Cognitive Disorder
NOS from the sample (N ¼ 344)
Measures
a
TOMM1
TOMMe10b
Regressionc
FTT*
WAIS-III: PSI
WAIS-III: WMI
CVLT-II (FC)
BVMT-R (Hits)
Sensitivity
Specificity
Hit rate
AUC
LR
83.0
75.5
78.2
93.0
94.6
95.3
89.0
87.3
88.9
94.2
89.6
92.1
12
14
17
Notes: WAIS-III ¼ Wechsler Intelligence Scale, Third edition; PSI ¼ Processing Speed Index; WMI ¼ Working Memory Index; CVLT-II (FC) ¼ California
Verbal Learning Test, Second edition, Forced Choice trial; BVMT-R (Hits) ¼ Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, correct number of hits on yes/no recognition trial; AUC ¼ area under the curve; LR ¼ likelihood ratio.
a
TOMM1 cut-off ≤41.
b
TOMMe10 cut-off ≥2 errors.
c
Regression equation cut-off ≥0.5010178.
*FTT based on the mean of first three trials of dominant hand.
(...truncated)
