A Study of the TOMM and DCT in Chinese-Speaking Immigrants with Limited English Proficiency in the United States

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Yi-Ting Chang, B. Rosenfeld, W. Tam, Cheng-Yun Teng, Ying Han
{"title":"A Study of the TOMM and DCT in Chinese-Speaking Immigrants with Limited English Proficiency in the United States","authors":"Yi-Ting Chang, B. Rosenfeld, W. Tam, Cheng-Yun Teng, Ying Han","doi":"10.1080/14999013.2022.2027048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The accuracy of performance validity tests (PVTs) with culturally diverse populations has increasingly been questioned. High false positive rates have been found in some PVTs in culturally and linguistically diverse individuals within the U.S. and internationally. No study to date has investigated the accuracy of PVTs with Chinese-speaking immigrants (CSI) in the U.S. The current study aimed to evaluate two PVTs, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Dot Counting Test (DCT), to determine their accuracy in a community sample of CSI with limited English proficiency. These two measures were used in a simulation design, contrasting 52 participants who were instructed to respond honestly to 22 participants instructed to feign incompetency to stand trial. Results demonstrated the scores of TOMM Trial 1 and Trial 2 were effective in classifying honest responders from simulators, whereas the DCT E-score did not differentiate the groups better than chance. However, false positive rates for the TOMM Trial 1, Trial 2, and the DCT E-score were relatively low. Only one honest responder (1.9%) was classified as exerting insufficient effort in TOMM Trial 1 and DCT E-score, and the TOMM Trial 2 did not misclassify any honest responders. Implications and cautionary statements are provided and discussed.","PeriodicalId":14052,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2022.2027048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The accuracy of performance validity tests (PVTs) with culturally diverse populations has increasingly been questioned. High false positive rates have been found in some PVTs in culturally and linguistically diverse individuals within the U.S. and internationally. No study to date has investigated the accuracy of PVTs with Chinese-speaking immigrants (CSI) in the U.S. The current study aimed to evaluate two PVTs, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Dot Counting Test (DCT), to determine their accuracy in a community sample of CSI with limited English proficiency. These two measures were used in a simulation design, contrasting 52 participants who were instructed to respond honestly to 22 participants instructed to feign incompetency to stand trial. Results demonstrated the scores of TOMM Trial 1 and Trial 2 were effective in classifying honest responders from simulators, whereas the DCT E-score did not differentiate the groups better than chance. However, false positive rates for the TOMM Trial 1, Trial 2, and the DCT E-score were relatively low. Only one honest responder (1.9%) was classified as exerting insufficient effort in TOMM Trial 1 and DCT E-score, and the TOMM Trial 2 did not misclassify any honest responders. Implications and cautionary statements are provided and discussed.
美国英语水平有限的汉语移民的TOMM和DCT研究
摘要针对多元文化人群的绩效效度测试(pvt)的准确性日益受到质疑。在美国和国际上,在文化和语言不同的个体中发现了一些pvt的高假阳性率。到目前为止,还没有研究调查了在美国讲中文的移民(CSI)的pvt的准确性。本研究旨在评估两种pvt,记忆装病测试(TOMM)和点计数测试(DCT),以确定它们在英语水平有限的CSI社区样本中的准确性。在模拟设计中使用了这两种测量方法,对比了52名被要求诚实回答的参与者和22名被要求假装没有能力接受审判的参与者。结果表明,试验1和试验2的TOMM分数有效地区分了诚实的反应者和模拟者,而DCT E-score并没有更好地区分各组。然而,TOMM试验1、试验2和DCT e评分的假阳性率相对较低。在TOMM试验1和DCT E-score中,只有一名诚实应答者(1.9%)被归类为努力不足,TOMM试验2没有对任何诚实应答者进行错误分类。提供并讨论了影响和警示性陈述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信