Choosing to know less: a response to Booksh, Aubert, and Andrews.

摘要

Booksh, Aubert, and Andrews have written to critique our recent paper (Greve Bianchini, 2006a) examining the clinical implications of omitting the Retention Trial of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) when Trial 2 is passed. We appreciate being offered the opportunity to respond. In reading Booksh, Aubert, and Andrews (in press) it was difficult to discern a central theme to their critique, as the authors obliquely allude to many topics but without any sustained thinking on any one idea. Overall, they appear motivated by their opposition to using the Retention Trial of the TOMM and strongly object to what they believe was our conclusion: "Greve and Bianchini (2006) suggest the Retention Trial should always be administered."