A growing literature indicates that to evaluate the credibility of a clinical presentation it would be optimal to rely on multiple sources of information, and use both symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) whenever possible. In this paper, we present the development and initial validation of a PVT module designed to be used in combination with a free-standing SVT. Named Inventory of Problems – Memory (IOP-M), this new PVT module is given to the examinee immediately after completing the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29). It consists of a 34-item, two-alternative, forced-choice, implicit recognition test. Results from 360 nonclinical volunteers – 192 instructed to respond honestly (honest controls) and 168 instructed to feign mental illness (experimental simulators) – suggest that the IOP-M has the potential to yield incremental validity over using the IOP-29 alone. In fact, a series of hierarchical logistic regressions using group as criterion variable (0 = honest control; 1 = experimental simulator) and the IOP-29 and IOP-M as predictors showed that the models including both measures significantly improved classification accuracy over those including the IOP-29 only, Δχ2 ≥ 19.1, p < .01. When considering the optimal cut scores for each measure, only 6 of the 168 simulators (i.e., less than 4%) passed both the IOP-29 and IOP-M, and only 3 of the 192 honest responders (i.e., less than 2%) failed both. A closer examination of false positive classifications, however, revealed that the IOP-M could be prone to false positive errors in examinees with moderate to severe cognitive impairment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Accordingly, the IOP-Memory test may be referred to as the IOP-Memory module or IOP-M module.
Because homoscedasticity could not be assumed, the Welch–Satterthwaite method was used to adjust degrees of freedom.
Because homoscedasticity could not be assumed, the Welch–Satterthwaite method was used to adjust degrees of freedom.
Severity levels for the MoCA were retrieved from the official MoCA website at https://www.mocatest.org/faq/. However, because research for these severity ranges has not been established yet, these characterizations should be considered “tentative.”
Abeare, C. A., Messa, I., Zuccato, B. G., Merker, B., & Erdodi, L. A. (2018). Prevalence of invalid performance on baseline testing for sport-related concussion by age and validity indicator. JAMA Neurology, 75(6), 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0031.
Abeare, C. A., Messa, I., Whitfield, C., Zuccato, B., Casey, J., & Erdodi, L. (2019). Performance validity in collegiate football athletes at baseline neurocognitive testing. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 34(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000451.
An, K. Y., Kaploun, K., Erdodi, L. A., & Abeare, C. A. (2017). Performance validity in undergraduate research participants: A comparison of failure rates across tests and cutoffs. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1217046.
Bigler, E. D. (2012). Symptom validity testing, effort and neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 632–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000252.
Bigler, E. D. (2015). Neuroimaging as a biomarker in symptom validity and performance validity testing. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 9(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9409-1.
Boone, K. B. (2013). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W., Peters, M. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2011). Cognitive underperformance and symptom over-reporting in a mixed psychiatric sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(5), 812–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2011.583280.
Davis, J. J. (2014). Further consideration of advanced clinical solutions word choice: Comparison to the recognition memory test – Words and classification accuracy on a clinical sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(8), 1278–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.975844.
Elhai, J. D., Gray, M. J., Kashdan, T. B., & Franklin, L. C. (2005). Which instruments are most commonly used to assess traumatic event exposure and posttraumatic effects? Asurvey of traumatic stress professionals. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 541–545.
Erdodi, L. A. (2019). Aggregating validity indicators: The salience of domain specificity and the indeterminate range in multivariate models of performance validity assessment. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 26(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1384925.
Erdodi, L. A., Abeare, C. A., Lichtenstein, J. D., Tyson, B., T., Kucharski, B., Zuccato, B. G., & Roth, R. M. (2017). WAIS-IV processing speed scores as measures of non-credible responding – The third generation of embedded performance validity indicators. Psychological Assessment, 29(2), 148–157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000319.
Erdodi, L. A., Kirsch, N. L., Lajiness-O’Neill, R., Vingilis, E., & Medoff, B. (2014). Comparing the recognition memory test and the word choice test in a mixed clinical sample: Are they equivalent? Psychological Injury and Law, 7(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9197-8.
Erdodi, L. A., Kirsch, N. L., Sabelli, A. G., & Abeare, C. A. (2018). The grooved pegboard test as a validity indicator – A study on psychogenic interference as a confound in performance validity research. Psychological Injury and Law, 11(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9337-7.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198.
Fox, K. A. & Vincent, J.P. (2020). Types of malingering in PTSD: Evidence from a psychological injury paradigm. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09367-5 .
Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Wygant, D. B., & Green, P. (2007). Development and validation of a response Bias scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2. Assessment, 14, 196–208.
Giromini, L., Barbosa, F., Coga, G., Azeredo, A., Viglione, D. J., & Zennaro, A. (2019b). Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners. In Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the test of memory malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1570929.
Giromini, L., Carfora Lettieri, S., Zizolfi, S., Zizolfi, D., Viglione, D. J., Brusadelli, E., Perfetti, B., di Carlo, D. A., & Zennaro, A. (2019). Beyond rare-symptoms endorsement: A clinical comparison simulation study using the Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with the inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29). Psychological Injury and Law, [Epub ahead of print], 12, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09357-7.
Giromini, L., Viglione, D. J., Pignolo, C., & Zennaro, A. (2018). A clinical comparison, simulation study testing the validity of SIMS and IOP-29 with an Italian sample. Psychological Injury and Law, 11(4), 340–350.
Giromini, L., Viglione, D. J., Pignolo, C., & Zennaro, A. (2019). An inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) sensitivity study investigating feigning of four different symptom presentations via malingering experimental paradigm. Journal of Personality Assessment, [Epub ahead of print], 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1566914.
Green, P. (2003). Green’s word memory test. Edmonton, Canada: Green’s Publishing.
Green, P., Allen, L. M., & Astner, K. (1996). The word memory test: A user’s guide to the oral and computer-administered forms, US version 1.1. Durham, NC: CogniSyst.
Green, R. L. (1991). MMPI-2/MMPI: An interpretative manual. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jones, A. (2013). Test of memory malingering: Cutoff scores for psychometrically defined malingering groups in a military sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(6), 1043–1059.
Jones, A. (2016). Cutoff scores for MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF cognitive-somatic validity scales for psychometrically defined malingering groups in a military sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31, 786–801.
Ilgunaite, G., Giromini, L., Bosi, J., Viglione, D. J., & Zennaro, A. (2020). A clinical comparison simulation study using the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in Lithuania. In A clinical comparison simulation study using the inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in Lithuania. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2020.1725518.
Larrabee, G. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22, 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701494987.
Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 18(4), 625–630.
MacAllister, W. S., Vasserman, M., & Armstrong, K. (2019). Are we documenting performance validity testing in pediatric neuropsychological assessments? A brief report. Child Neuropsychology, 25, 1–8.
Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey on north American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741–776.
Mass, R., Haasen, C., & Wolf, K. (2000). The Eppendorf schizophrenia inventory (ESI). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire for assessment of characteristic self-perception of cognitive dysfunctions by schizophrenic patients. Nervenarzt, 71, 885–892.
Mass, R., Haasen, C., & Borgart, E. (2005). Abnormal subjective experiences of schizophrenia: Evaluation of the eppendorf schizophrenia inventory. Psychiatry Research, 135(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2004.08.011
Merten, T., Merckelbach, H., Giger, P., & Stevens, A. (2016). The self-report symptom inventory (SRSI): A new instrument for the assessment of distorted symptom endorsement. Psychological Injury and Law, 9(2), 102–111.
Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality assessment inventory (PAI). Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bedirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 695–699.
Nelson, N., Sweet, J., & Heilbronner, R. (2007). Examination of the new MMPI-2 response Bias scale (Gervais): Relationship with the MMPI-2 validity scales. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 67–72.
Nguyen, C. T., Green, D., & Barr, W. B. (2015). Evaluation of the MMPI-2-RF for detecting over-reported symptoms in a civil forensic and disability setting. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(2), 255–271.
Pearson (2009). Advanced clinical solutions for the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV – Technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Rabin, L., Spadaccini, A., Brodale, D., Charcape, M., & Barr, B. (2014). Utilization rates of computerized tests and test batteries among clinical neuropsychologists in the U.S. and Canada. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 368–377.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306.
Rai, J., An, K. Y., Charles, J., Ali, S., & Erdodi, L. A. (2019). Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Rey complex figure test. Psychology & Neuroscience, 12(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000175.
Rai, J. K., & Erdodi, L. A. (2019). Impact of criterion measures on the classification accuracy of TOMM-1. In Impact of criterion measures on the classification accuracy of TOMM-1. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1613994.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’ence’phalopathie traumatique. Archives de Psychologie, 28, 286–340.
Rogers, R., & Bender, D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10(2), 160–177.
Roma, P., Giromini, L., Burla, F., Ferracuti, S., Viglione, D. J., & Mazza, C. (2020). Ecological validity of the inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29): An Italian study of court-ordered, psychological injury evaluations using the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS) as criterion variable. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 57–65.
Schroeder, R. W., Martin, P. K., Heindrichs, R. J., & Baade, L. E. (2019). Research methods in performance validity testing studies: Criterion grouping approach impacts study outcomes. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(3), 466–477.
Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545–561.
Smith, G. P., & Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS). Journal of the American Academy on Psychiatry and Law, 25, 180–183.
Tarachow, S. (1947). The syndrome of inhibition. Psychiatric Quarterly, 21(2), 233–252.
Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of memory malingering (TOMM). New York, USA: Multi Health Systems.
van Dyke, S. A., Millis, S. R., Axelrod, B. N., & Hanks, R. A. (2013). Assessing effort: Differentiating performance and symptom validity. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(8), 1234–1246.
Viglione, D. J., & Giromini, L. (2020). Inventory of problems–29: Professional manual. Columbus, OH: IOP-Test, LLC.
Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L., & Landis, P. (2017). The development of the inventory of problems–29: A brief self-administered measure for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 534–544.
Viglione, D. J., Wright, D., Dizon, N. T., Moynihan, J. E., DuPuis, S., & Pizitz, T. D. (2001). Evading detection on the MMPI–2: Does caution produce more realistic patterns of responding? Assessment, 8, 237–250.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Weiss, D. S. (2004). The impact of event scale-revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed., pp. 168–189). New York: Guilford Press.
Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The impact of event scale-revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A Practitioner’s handbook (pp. 399–411). New York: Guilford Press.
Westmacott, R., & Moscovitch, M. (2003). The contribution of autobiographical significance to semantic memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 761–774.
Whiteside, D. M., Hunt, I., Choate, A., Caraher, K., & Basso, M. R. (2020). Stratified performance on the test of memory malingering (TOMM) is associated with differential responding on the personality assessment inventory (PAI). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 42(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1695749.
Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-structured inventory of malingered symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Wilcox, R. R. (2016). Comparing dependent robust correlations. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69, 215–224.
Young, G. (2019). The cry for help in psychological injury and law: Concepts and review. Psychological Injury and Law, 12, 225–237.
We thank Cecilia Gherghi, Lucia Lorenzetti and Mariachiara Didonna for their help in the data collection.
Conflict of Interest
Luciano Giromini and Donald J. Viglione declare that they own a share in the corporate (LLC) that possesses the rights to Inventory of Problems instruments (both IOP-29 and IOP-M). The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Giromini, L., Viglione, D.J., Zennaro, A. et al. SVT Meets PVT: Development and Initial Validation of the Inventory of Problems – Memory (IOP-M). Psychol. Inj. and Law (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09385-8
- Inventory of problems