Malingering refers to the voluntary production of false or greatly exaggerated symptoms in pursuit of an obviously recognizable goal. Numerous studies have shown the psychological tests can detect persons faking various mental disorders; however, the majority of these are plagued by methodological flaws that seriously limit their validity and generalizability. The present study employed a contrasted-groups design that allowed for a rigorous test of the hypothesis that a battery of psychological tests can detect persons given a financial incentive to fake insanity or mental retardation. In addition to using two tests previously employed in simulation research (MMPI and Bender Gestalt), an instrument whose sole purpose is to differentiate malingerers from genuinely impaired adults was developed for validation in this study. This pen-and-paper test (the Malingering Scale) consists of 90 arithmetic, vocabulary, information and abstraction items, and requires 20 minutes to complete. One hundred male adults were divided into five groups of 20 subjects. Two groups consisted of genuinely impaired subjects (either mentally retarded or psychotic inpatients). The other three groups were drawn from a population of prison inmates. Two of the latter groups were offered a financial incentive for successful simulation of a mental disorder (either mental retardation or "insanity") while the fifth group consisted of inmates controls (answering honestly). The test battery was administered to all subjects and scored by examiners who were naive to the purpose of the study. A series of item analyses established the internal consistency of the Malingering Scale and identified those items which best differentiate malingerers from the genuinely impaired. These items were assembled into scoring keys for subjects faking each condition. All test scores were then entered into a series of discriminant function analyses which confirmed the hypothesis that the battery provided more powerful discrimination of subject groups than any single test. Overall, 84% of the subjects were accurately classified into their respective group, and 96% of subjects were correctly identified as either malingering or not malingering. The most powerful single instrument proved to be the Malingering Scale. Direction for future research, including the necessity for cross validation of the Malingering Scale, were discussed.

This investigation was conducted to explore the between trial variability of the measures of the isometric peak force, time to peak force, area to peak force, area under the curve, slope (20%-80%), and the average slope of subjects assigned to perform a series of four isometric grip strength contractions and to develop a discriminant function equation that would predict group membership. Forty-nine college students were instructed to perform either a series of four maximal voluntary contractions (sincere) or a series of four submaximal (deceptive) contractions. The subjects were retested 24-48 hours after the initial test session. Data from both test sessions were recorded, displayed, and analyzed using segmental curve analysis. The coefficients of variation were computed for each test variable. The grand mean coefficient of variation for the sincere condition was .31 ± .02 compared to the grand mean coefficient of variation for the deceptive condition which was .77 ± .11 (p < .01). Coefficients of variation were used to predict group membership. The prediction equation accurately classified 92% of the sincere condition and 64% of the deceptive condition. / Master of Science

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM 5) presents an alternate model for personality disorders, blending categorical and dimensional assessment into a hybrid diagnostic procedure. Released concurrently, the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5) measures the five domains and 25 facets that comprise the trait components of this hybrid model. However, the PID 5 currently lacks validity indicators to capture intentionally distorted responding. The current study investigated the susceptibility of the PID 5 to defensiveness and feigning among a large sample of undergraduate students. First, a detailed desirability analysis (N = 465) was conducted of the PID 5 items and response options. Responses from the study were used to create three desirability based validity scales. Next, in a between-subjects simulation design (N = 128), the effects of faking were explored at domain and facet levels. As a result, two symptom based validity scales were created. In a separate validation sample (N = 134), the five newly created validity scales were compared with the Paulhus Deception Scales for capturing both defensiveness and feigning. All five scales were evaluated for ruling out faking (i.e., identifying likely genuine respondents) and ruling in either defensiveness or feigning. In most areas, the symptom based scales were more successful than the desirability based scales, though all scales had difficulty identifying defensiveness. These initial results offer fertile ground for additional testing and development of PID 5 validity scales.