Willis et al (2012) recently reported the results of three cases on the WMT. Unfortunately, the authors misinterpreted and misrepresented the WMT.
The authors did not follow the simple and very explicit interpretive guidelines laid out in the Advanced Interpretation program. For example, the demented doctor, one of three cases, would automatically be classified by the AI program as a case where dementia must be ruled out before concluding poor effort. Yet they called it a false positive.
Interpreted correctly and according to the principles used by thousands of WMT users, the WMT in this case would have been very helpful in pointing directly to a possible diagnosis of dementia because almost no other condition could explain such results in a physician. They also misinterpreted the data on the other two cases.
HERE IS GRAVER’S CRITIQUE OF WILLIS ET AL
http://localhost/greens/DISCUSSIONS/RECENT_PAPERS_2010/Willis_critique_by_Graver.pdf
Thank you to the Editor of “Military Medicine:International Journal of AMSUS” for permission to post this link to their journal.
Click this link for a more detailed critique: MILITARY MEDICINE, 176, 12:1426, 2011.
Here is an example of how the Advanced Interpretation program helps in the interpretation of scores from the WMT, MSVT, NV-MSVT or MCI. In this example, a woman was feigning dementia: Sample case on AI.