Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Nov 19;35(8):1312-1322.
doi: 10.1093/arclin/acaa075.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Utility of the Test of Memory Malingering in Pediatric Examinees

Hilary A Clark  1 , Phillip K Martin  1 , Hayrettin Okut  2 , Ryan W Schroeder  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Utility of the Test of Memory Malingering in Pediatric Examinees

Hilary A Clark et al. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. .

Abstract

Objective: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in pediatric examinees. It adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Method: A systematic literature search was conducted using PsycINFO and PubMed, reviewing articles from January 1997 to July 2019. Books providing data on pediatric validity testing were also reviewed for references to relevant articles. Eligibility criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, utilizing a pediatric sample, providing sufficient data to calculate specificity and/or sensitivity, and providing a means for evaluating validity status external to the TOMM. After selection criteria were applied, 9 articles remained for meta-analysis. Samples included clinical patients and healthy children recruited for research purposes; ages ranged from 5 to 18. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate classification accuracy statistics.

Results: Traditional adult-derived cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96-0.99) in pediatric examinees for both clinical and research samples. Sensitivity was relatively strong (0.68-0.70), although only two studies reported sensitivity rates. A supplemental review of the literature corroborated these findings, revealing that traditional adult-based TOMM cutoffs are supported in most pediatric settings. However, limited research exists on the impact of very young age, extremely low cognitive functioning, and varying clinical diagnoses.

Conclusions: The TOMM, at traditional adult cutoffs, has strong specificity as a performance validity test in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. This meta-analysis found that specificity values in children are comparable to those of adults. Areas for further research are discussed.

Keywords: Children; Meta-analysis; Pediatric; Systematic review; TOMM; Test of Memory Malingering.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources