Research has found that child molesters (both pedophilic and non-pedophilic) tend to have poorer executive functioning (EF), particularly inhibition, as compared to other types of criminal offenders (Eastvold, Suchy, Strassberg, & 2011; Suchy, Whittaker, Strassberg, & Eastvold, 2009). Poorer performance on measures of inhibition may have different mechanisms for pedophilic child molesters (PCM; i.e., those offenders who are sexually attracted only to children) than non-pedophilic child molesters (N-PCM; i.e., those offenders whose sexual attraction is not limited to children). Specifically, poor inhibition in PCM may be explained by slower processing speed (Suchy, et al., 2009; Suchy, Eastvold, Strassberg, & Franchow, 2014), whereas it may be explained by impulsive errors in N-PCM (Eastvold, Suchy, & Strassberg, 2011). Intraindividual variability (IIV) refers to transient, short-term fluctuations in performance (Nesselroade, 1991). IIV is sometimes interpreted as a measure of cognitive control, an aspect of EF that could impact performance speed and accuracy due to poorer focus.

Greater IIV also appreas to be associated with greater vulnerability to EF depletion after behavioral inhibition (DesRuisseaux, Suchy, & Franchow, 2021), which could represent a mechanism whereby vulnerability to EF depletion could be a precursor of offense. However, given that poor performance on measures of inhibition seem to have different underlying mechanisms for PCM and N-PCM, it is unclear whether both groups would exhibit greater IIV compared to non-sexual offenders.

Participants were PCM (n = 76, M age = 33.61(7.74), Range = 1947; 92.1% White, 2.6% Hispanic/Latino, 2.6% Native American, 1.3% Black, 1.3% Other), N-PCM (n = 52, M age = 30-88(6.37), Range = 2045; 73.1% White, 13.5% Hispanic/Latino, 7.7% Other, 3.8% Native American, 1.9% Black), and non-sexual offenders (n = 25, M age = 29.96(8.16), Range = 22-45; 80% White, 8% Hispanic/Latino, 8% Other, 8% Asian) recruited as part of two larger studies examining cognition in sex offenders. IIV was assessed using the Push-Turn-Tap-Tap (PTT) task, an experimental computerized measure of EF from which IIV can be calculated (DesRuisseaux et al., 2021).

Independent samples t-tests found that both PCM and N-PCM had greater IIV than nonsexual offenders (t(99) = 2.13, p = .04; t(75) = 2.23, p = .03, respectively). Even on their fastest responses, PCM had greater time elapsed between correct sequences (i.e., slower response style; t(126) = 2.23, p = .03) than N-PCM. There were no significant differences in error rates between any groups (p > .05).

These results suggest that IIV varies between sexual and non-sexual offenders but does not vary between PCM and N-PCM. This is consistent with prior research suggesting that both PCM and N-PCM have poorer EF than non-sexual offenders. Additionally, consistent with prior research, PCM had a slower response style than N-PCM and non-sexual offenders. Unlike prior research that has found significant differences in accuracy rates between PCM and N-PCM, the present results did not find a significant difference. Since IIV has been associated with increased likelihood of EF depletion (likely increasing risk of lapses), future research could examine whether CM with greater IIV have an increased likelihood of reoffending.

This retrospective study compared base rates of failure on a series of standalone and embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) in a sample of Spanish-speaking forensic litigants and explored the impact of demographic factors on PVT performance.

62 Spanish-speaking participants involved in litigation (primarily for work-related mTBI) underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Country of origin spanned South American (56.5%), Caribbean (22.5%), Central American (16.1%), North American (3.2%), and Spanish (1.6%) regions. Of this sample, 56 completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), 45 completed the Rey Fifteen Item Test (RFIT), and 49 completed the Dot Counting Test (DCT). Embedded validity measures, Reliable Digit Span (RDS) and the WHO-Auditory Verbal Learning Test (WHO-AVLT) were completed by 32 and 48 participants, respectively.

Effects of age (M=42.4, SD=11.72) and region of origin did not significantly impact overall performance on any measure. Mean scores across all standalone PVTs were below cutoffs, which have been previously suggested for use with Spanish-speaking populations (TOMM <40, RFIT total <21, DCT e-score >18). Overall base rates of failure were as follows: 52.5% TOMM (T1 M= 37.5, SD=10.7; T2 M=35.1, SD=10.6), 64.9% RFIT (M=17.8, SD=7.8) 57.6% DCT (M=18.3, SD=8.8), 51.1% RDS (M=6.1, SD=1.6), 29.4% WHO-AVLT (M=10.7, SD=3.9. Years of education (M=9.98, 3.96) was significantly correlated with RFIT total score (r(43) = .48, p<.01) and DCT e-score (r(47) = -.34, p<.05. When stratified by level of education (0-6, 7-11, and 12+), a large discrepancy in base rate of failure was observed on the RFIT, with failures in 92% of participants with less than six years of education, as compared to 52% and 59% failure in those with 7-11 and 12+ years, respectively. Variability in base rates of DCT failure across levels of education, although less extreme than on the RFIT, again demonstrated higher rates of failure in participants with less than six years of education (0-6: 71%, 7-11: 54%, 12+: 52%).

These findings add to the existing literature surrounding measurement of suboptimal effort in Spanish-speaking populations. Base rates of PVT failure on both standalone and embedded measures were generally much higher than those reported in prior studies of forensic or compensation-seeking groups, including some with Spanish speaking participants. These high rates of failure are likely attributable, at least in part, to sample characteristics, due to the high proportion of individuals engaged in litigation associated with workplace injuries on construction sites at the study location. Such findings illustrate the importance of a thorough effort assessment for this population. Finally, results demonstrating reduced specificity of the RFIT in Spanish-speaking participants with less than six years of education, suggesting caution is warranted for its use in neuropsychological evaluations with such individuals.

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is a performance validity test (PVT) that aims to assess whether participants are giving adequate effort to perform well on tasks of memory performance (Tombaugh, 1996). Other PVTs, specifically the Forced Choice Recognition Trial in the California Verbal Learning Test, have shown that even single errors may indicate invalid performance (Erdodi et al., 2018). Finally, youth are often understudied in the PVT literature, and athletes are at increased risk of invalid performance on baseline testing due to many wanting to return to play following concussion (Erdal, 2012). Therefore, the objective of the current study is to examine whether single errors on TOMM Trial 1 are indicative of lower, and possibly invalid, cognitive performance in a youth sample, given that cognitive performance declines with even small decreases in effort (Green, 2007).

Healthy youth athletes (n=174) aged 8-16 years (M=12.07) completed the TOMM as well as other neuropsychological measures during baseline neuropsychological evaluation in a clinical research program for sports concussion. Independent samples t-tests compared youth athletes who scored 49 points on the TOMM (n=28) to youth athletes who scored a perfect 50 (n=50) across several groupings of neuropsychological measures. Participants who scored less than 49 or who didn’t complete the TOMM were excluded from the analyses.

Participants scoring 50/50 on TOMM Trial 1 scored significantly higher on Stroop Color Naming task (p=0.036), Verbal Learning Delayed task from the second edition of the Wide Range Assessment of Learning and Memory (WRAML-2, p=0.018), and Letter Number Sequencing task from the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV, p=0.025), relative to participants scoring 49/50. Though not statistically significant, results also showed a trend toward participants scoring 50/50 scoring higher on nearly every test in the battery.

Participants with a single error on TOMM Trial 1, as compared to participants with a perfect score, performed significantly worse on a processing speed task, a verbal learning task, and a working memory task as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. The single-error group also trended toward scoring lower on nearly all of the remaining attention, processing speed, perceptual ability, memory, and executive functioning tasks in the battery. The results could lead to a more liberal interpretation of TOMM scores, given that the trend towards lower performance may be due to putting forth significantly less effort. These results point to the need for a similar comparison of the TOMM in a larger sample size, as greater power may reveal even more significant differences in performance. Findings also emphasize the importance of viewing performance validity on a continuum rather than as a dichotomous pass/fail. Understanding the TOMM and how single errors may be indicative of poorer performance in a youth sample could help to reframe the way PVT results are interpreted in clinical and forensic settings.