Cognitive Task Report
Word-Recognition Validity Test
VALID — within expected range
Recognition accuracy (48/50) was within the expected range for genuine effort — at or above the conventional forced-choice cutoff and not below chance.
What This Task Measures
The Word-Recognition Validity Test is a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) recognition-memory task used as a performance-validity check — it gauges whether a set of memory results reflects genuine effort, not how good your memory is.
Learning phase. A short list of common, concrete words is shown one at a time to encode. These words are easy to remember, so genuine responders — including people with real memory impairment — typically recognise them well above chance.
Recognition phase. Each learned word (the target) is shown beside an unrelated, length-matched distractor (the foil), and you choose the one you saw. With two options per item, pure guessing averages 50%.
How it is read. Scoring significantly below chance (an exact one-tailed binomial test against 50%) is strong evidence of non-credible responding, because deliberately avoiding the correct answer is not explained by any known memory disorder. A separate conventional cutoff (45/50) flags accuracy that is atypical even for genuine memory impairment — but that cutoff is a published forced-choice convention and is not yet independently validated on this item bank, so it is provisional and should be weighed alongside other indicators, never in isolation. Per-item reaction times are reported descriptively only. Results are indicative, not diagnostic.
Performance Indices
These figures describe this respondent's own within-session performance — reaction-time differences and accuracy across conditions. Where a published reference distribution exists, a percentile within that sample is shown alongside the raw value; otherwise only the raw effect is reported.
| Recognition items | 50 |
| Correct | 48 / 50 |
| Accuracy | 96.0% |
| Below-chance test (one-tailed p) | 1.0000 |
| Conventional cutoff (45/50) | at or above cutoff |
| Overall classification | VALID — within expected range |
| Reaction-time outliers (descriptive) | 1 |
Method & Limitations
This is a performance-validity check, not a memory-ability score: it asks whether the results look credible, not how strong your memory is. The below-chance test is an exact one-tailed binomial test against 50%. The 45/50 cutoff is a published forced-choice convention (e.g. TOMM) and is not yet independently validated on this item bank — treat it as provisional. Reaction-time outliers are descriptive only. A single administration is indicative, not diagnostic.
References
- Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545–561.
- Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260–268.
- Boone, K. B. (2007). Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment: A Neuropsychological Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.