Skip to main content
. 2008 Oct 7;8:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-8-37

Table 8.

Negative (NPP) and positive predictive power (PPP) at various base-rates of malingering

Variable Cut-off Base rate NPP PPP
Trial 1 < 6 .1 .50 .13
.2 .44 .26
.3 .38 .37
Trial 5 < 10 .1 .60 .20
.2 .52 .36
.3 .44 .50
Trial 1-5 < 43 .1 .50 .15
.2 .43 .29
.3 .37 .41
Interference list < 5 .1 .68 .24
.2 .59 .41
.3 .50 .54
Trial 6 < 7 .1 .65 .23
.2 .56 .40
.3 .48 .53
Trial 7 < 7 .1 .64 .26
.2 .55 .44
.3 .46 .57
Trial 6-5 < 2 .1 .80 .26
.2 .71 .44
.3 .61 .57
Trial 7-5 < 2 .1 .59 .13
.2 .52 .25
.3 .45 .37
Recognition < 12 .1 .64 .25
.2 .55 .43
.3 .47 .56
Corrected recognition score < 11 .1 .15 .10
.2 .13 .21
.3 .12 .31
3recallednotrecog > 1 .1 .64 .28
.2 .54 .47
.3 .45 .60
VLMT number of times the first word was recalled in trials 1 to 5 < 5 .1 .36 .13
.2 .31 .25
.3 .27 .37
VLMT number of times the last word was recalled in trials 1 to 5 < 4 .1 .57 .11
.2 .51 .22
.3 .44 .32
FIT recall < 9 .1 .64 .18
.2 .56 .33
.3 .48 .46
FIT recognition < 12 .1 .68 .24
.2 .59 .41
.3 .50 .54
FIT combination score < 22 .1 .55 .17
.2 .48 .31
.3 .41 .44
BSV-STM correct responses < 84 .1 .34 .20
.2 .28 .36
.3 .23 .49
BSV-STM RT > 774 .1 .48 .23
.2 .40 .40
.3 .33 .53
VLMT 1 < 57 .1 .67 .29
.2 .58 .48
.3 .48 .61
COMB 1 < 58 .1 .67 .29
.2 .58 .48
.3 .48 .61