Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026

07:01
Working Memory Training for Older Participants: A Control Group Training Regimen and Initial Intellectual Functioning Assessment
Published on: September 20, 2020
Suppressed working memory on the WMS-III as a marker for poor effort
Rael T Lange1, Grant L Iverson, Karen Sullivan
1Riverview Hospital, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. rlange@bcmhs.bc.ca
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
|April 19, 2006
Summary
Memory minus Working Memory Index (memory-WMI) discrepancy scores on the WMS-III are not clinically useful for detecting poor effort in personal injury litigants. These scores showed low sensitivity and positive predictive power, suggesting cautious use.
Area of Science:
- Neuropsychology
- Forensic Psychology
Background:
- Assessing response bias is crucial in forensic evaluations.
- The Weschler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III) memory-WMI discrepancy scores are proposed indicators of poor effort.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the clinical utility of WMS-III memory-WMI discrepancy scores for identifying poor effort in personal injury litigants.
- To determine the effectiveness of these discrepancy scores in distinguishing between adequate and poor effort groups.
Main Methods:
- Utilized discriminant function analyses on WMS-III memory-WMI discrepancy scores from 145 personal injury litigants (19 poor effort, 126 adequate effort).
- Examined classification rates, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power of the discrepancy scores.
Main Results:
- The poor effort group exhibited significantly lower WMS-III memory index scores and larger memory-WMI discrepancies.
- Overall classification rates were poor (60.0%–63.4%).
- High specificity and negative predictive power were observed for suppressed attention-concentration relative to memory, but sensitivity and positive predictive power were unacceptably low.
Conclusions:
- WMS-III memory-WMI discrepancy scores lack sufficient clinical utility for reliably detecting poor effort.
- These scores should be used with caution as indicators of response set in forensic evaluations.
- Further research may be needed to identify more robust measures of response bias.

