Title: Relative sensitivity of the Word Memory Test and Test of Memory Malingering in 144 disability claimants
Abstract: performances by patients failing computerized SVTs such as CARB or the Word Memory Test (WMT) are actually made worse when patients are observed.The experience of other clinicians is just the opposite, with many believing that if patients are left alone or passively observed during computerized administration that this contributes to more exaggerated SVT performance in patients who are not inclined to provide good effort.To empirically investigate this question, we analyzed WMT effort measure data from patients who failed either the oral or computerized forms, using data drawn from a larger study that established the overall equivalence of these 2 forms.Oral WMT administration was accomplished in a face-to-face manner, while computerized WMT administration was done in a largely unattended manner.A total of 52 outpatients were given each form ofthe WMTseparated by 24 hours in counterbalanced order during a 2-day compensation-related assessment.Oral versus computerized classification agreement was achieved in 89% of the cases, and no differences were observed for the 2 forms of the WMT overall or between patients passing both forms.A total of 18 patients failed at least 1 form of the WMT, with performance on the oral form significantly elevated over computerized administration for the delayed recognition and recognition consistency effort measures.Theoretically, the computerized form of the WMT would be easier than the oral form because it provides specific trial feedback that can facilitate learning and consolidation between the immediate and delayed recognition subtests.No feedback is given during oral WMTadministration.These results suggest that SVTs that require face-to-face administration may be inferior to unattended computerized administration for discovering suboptimal effort during neuropsychological examination.Further research in this area is clearly indicated.