Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering in children with neurological conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing interest in the use of performance validity tests with youth, relatively little is known about how children and adolescents with neurological diagnoses perform on these measures. The purpose of this study was to examine performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a general pediatric neurologic sample. Data were obtained from 266 consecutive patients (mean age = 13.0, SD = 3.7, range = 5-18) referred for a neuropsychological assessment in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. As part of a broader neuropsychological battery, patients were administered the TOMM. In this sample, 94% of children passed the TOMM. Pass rate was 87% for 5-7 year-olds but was ≥ 90% for all other ages. Children with a history of stroke had the lowest pass rate (86%), with other diagnostic groups scoring ≥ 90%, including epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and hydrocephalus. Lower TOMM performance was related to slower processing speed and weaker memory performance. The results support using the TOMM with children and adolescents who have neurological diagnoses. Caution may still be warranted when interpreting scores in those who are younger and/or who have more significant cognitive difficulty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it