Using the yes/no recognition response pattern to detect memory malingering

BMC Psychology

Table 3 Comparisons of the TOMM and the yes/no recognition test (Alsterdorfer Faces Test) variables between participants instructed to malinger and participants instructed to perform normally

Variable	Instructed malingering participants (n = 20)	Instructed non-malingering participants (n = 20)
TOMM				W + value	Z-value
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests				W + value	Z-value
TOMM trial 1	M = 30.95, S = 9.73	M = 48.45, S = 2.48		218.5***	−5.25
TOMM trial 1	Min = 10, Max = 47	Min = 42, Max = 50		218.5***	−5.25
TOMM trial 2	M = 32.95, S = 11.32	M = 49.95, S = 0.22		222***	−5.44
TOMM trial 2	Min = 6, Max = 50	Min = 49, Max = 50		222***	−5.44
Yes/No Recognition Test			t-value	df	Cohen’s d
Independent t-tests			t-value	df	Cohen’s d
Discrimination Index (Pr)	0.17	0.76	−7.86***	27.99	−2.49
Discrimination Index (Pr)	(0.30)	(0.15)	−7.86***	27.99	−2.49
False negative responses	9.65	2.85	8.05***	38	2.54
False negative responses	(3.00)	(2.30)	8.05***	38	2.54
False positive responses _a	6.95	1.90	4.36***	26.02	1.38
False positive responses _a	(4.74)	(2.08)	4.36***	26.02	1.38

*** = p ≤ 0.001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. _a False positive responses did not exhibit standard normal distribution measured by the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. Parametric results are reported for readability. Results were confirmed by the Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test.

ISSN: 2050-7283