The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) is a relatively new measure shown to be a valid and effective tool for screening psychiatric malingering in criminal forensic and psychiatric inpatient settings. The present study attempts to cross-validate the M-FAST in civil forensic and neurologic samples. Three-hundred-eight civil forensic patients referred by their attorneys for neuropsychological testing were studied. Assessment batteries administered included tests of both psychiatric and neurocognitive feigning. Based on these gold standards, 4 sets of contrasts were formed in order to examine how the M-FAST performs in identifying psychiatric malingering, neurocognitive malingering, any malingering (including either or both types of malingering), as well as any malingering among a neurologic subset of this sample. At the level of group discrimination, the M-FAST Total score performed well in all contrasts. However, at the level of individual classification rates, although the M-FAST Total score was well supported for identifying psychiatric feigning, when neurocognitive malingering was present, performance dropped considerably. Thus, using the M-FAST recommended cutting score of 6, the M-FAST was able to successfully identify psychiatric malingering; however, the M-FAST is not an appropriate measure to use for identifying neurocognitive malingering within this sample.

Clinical neuropsychologists who assess patients following mild closed head injury (CHI) are often asked to offer an opinion whether there is evidence of malingering. Factors that impact the ability of a person to intentionally portray impairment are quite important since mis-diagnosis of malingering can result in delayed treatment. In this study knowledge of the sequelae of mild CHI was provided to normal college students in an effort to change reporting of symptoms and influence the type of malingering strategy used when completing the Neuropsychological Symptom Inventory (NSI). Subjects were randomly assigned to either a prior knowledge malingering group (PK;N=57), no prior knowledge malingering group (NPK;N=58), or control group (CON;N=61). The results showed that PK subjects endorsed more general and attention/concentration symptoms than NPK or CON subjects. The results also showed PK subjects were as likely to be detected by the NSI lie scale as NPK subjects. Thus, the NSI lie scale demonstrated sensitivity to malingering despite subjects having brief instruction about mild CHI. Also, having prior knowledge did not result in significantly different strategies when completing the NSI. Instead, both malingering groups reportedly used exaggeration and attempted to be consistent as frequent strategies. / Department of Educational Psychology

Forensic researchers and practitioners continue to face challenges when attempting to differentiate deceptive response styles, notably when comparing malingering and factitious disorder. However, due to the great disparities in research available, forensic examiners may not be adequately informed for considering factitious presentations as a competing hypothesis to malingering. De-emphasis of factitious disorders may also be attributed to the lack of empirical research and poor conceptual understanding of the disorder. Velsor and Rogers conducted a thorough review of various factitious motivations, drawing a parallel to Rogers' explanatory models of malingering. Due to the need for a systematic measure of FPPs, the Inventory of Self and Interpersonal Problems (I-SIP) was developed, largely based on the explanatory models of FPP. The current study employed a construct validity approach to the I-SIP to examine its convergent and discriminant validity in a sample of 80 inpatients from a private psychiatric hospital. Providing strong evidence of construct validity of the I-SIP, dramatic differences emerged between malingered and factitious presentations with extremely large effect sizes (ds = 1.09 – 3.62). In particular, results indicated strong support for the nurturance explanatory model of FPPs, as over-investment in treatment providers was an especially strong discriminator (d = 3.62). Moreover, results highlighted the potential problem of misclassification of response styles, as the SIMS did not effectively distinguish between simulation groups. To avoid diagnostic issues, arguments are presented for the consideration of FPPs as a dimensional construct that vary over time and circumstances. Professional implications are discussed, including practical guidelines for evaluating FPPs in clinical and forensic contexts.

Thesis (M.S. Ed.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1992. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 56-59). Also available via the Internet.

Title from title page of PDF (University of Missouri--St. Louis, viewed March 22, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-62).

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 2007. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 29 p. : ill. Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-26).

The Malingered Depression Scale (Md Scale; Steffan, Clopton, & Morgan, 2003) was recently developed for use with the MMPI-2 in attempts to distinguish individuals with genuine symptoms of depression from individuals who feign depression on the test. With respect to the Md scale, a relative lack of research and mixed findings regarding its utility are problematic; therefore, these issues were explored. The predictive and incremental validity of the Md scale were tested in this study to determine if use of the Md scale conferred a distinct predictive advantage over standard validity scales (e.g. F, FB, FP) in the differentiation between participants instructed to feign depression and participants who, prior to taking the MMPI-2, endorsed a significant number of depressive symptoms on a self-report measure. The Md scale demonstrated predictive and incremental validity in this study in distinguishing the two groups; however several limitations arose regarding use of the Md scale, most notably conceptual clarity within participant groups and problems regarding the use of cut scores.

No description available.

No description available.

Compromised validity of test data due to exaggeration or fabrication of cognitive deficits inhibits the capacity to establish appropriate conclusions and recommendations in neuropsychological examinations. Detection of feigned neurocognitive impairment presents a formidable challenge, particularly for evaluations involving possibilities of significant secondary gain. Among specific populations examined in this domain, litigating mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) samples are among the most researched. One subpopulation with potential to contribute significantly to this body of literature is that of retired athletes undergoing fixed-battery neuropsychological evaluations within an assessment program. Given the considerable prevalence of concussions sustained by athletes in this sport and the substantial monetary incentives within this program, a unique opportunity exists to establish rates of feigning within this population to be compared to similar forensic mTBI samples. Further, a fixed battery with multiple validity tests (VT) offers a chance to evaluate the classification accuracy of an aggregated VT failure paradigm, as uncertainty abounds regarding the optimal approach to the recommended use of multiple VTs for effort assessment. The current study seeks to examine rates of feigned neurocognitive impairment in this population, demonstrate prediction accuracy equivalence between models based on aggregated VT failures and logistic regression, and compare classification performance of various individual VTs.