Utility of TOMM Trial 1 as an Indicator of Effort in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although measuring test compliance in a pediatric neuropsychological evaluation is important, increasing demands on clinicians' time and the need for efficiency during assessments may make it difficult to routinely include effort testing. This study investigated whether performance on Trial 1 of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is predictive of overall performance in children and adolescents with neurological disorders. Participants included 53 children and adolescents between six and 19 years (mean age = 12.4, SD = 4.1) who were followed through a neurology clinic at a tertiary care hospital. Several cutoff scores were examined, with the goal of maximizing positive predictive (accurate detection of failure on the TOMM) and negative predictive (accurate detection of passing the TOMM) values. Every participant who scored ≥36 on Trial 1 (n = 50) went on to pass the TOMM. This study is the first step in providing evidence that performance on Trial 1 might be used as a quick screening measure of overall performance on the TOMM in children and adolescents. Further research on this topic is warranted.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".