Literature suggests rates of malingering differ for persons with compensation motives compared to those without such motives. This study examined whether or not rates of malingering are greater for persons with compensation claims. It was hypothesized that patients with compensation motives would have higher rates of malingering than non-compensation patients do. 2 computerized assessments of response bias were used to determine rates of malingering. No significant differences were found. Possible implications of the research are addressed. / Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services

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.

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Clinical Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

The present study compared the responses of a group of simulating malingerers who were offered a monetary incentive to feign symptoms of a head injury, with the responses of head injured groups both with and without litigation, a forensic parole group, and an honest-responding control group. The following six neuropsychological measures were utilized: Rey 15-Item Memory Test, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Finger Oscillation Test, WAIS-R Neuropsychological Instrument (Vocabulary, Information, and Similarities subtests), Booklet Category Test, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. The statistical concepts of floor effect, performance curve, and magnitude of error were examined. Additionally, the statistical differences in the responses of the five groups were analyzed to determine cutting scores for use in distinguishing malingerers from nonmalingerers.

Clinicians have a small number of measurement instruments available to them to assist in the identification of suboptimal effort during an evaluation, which is largely agreed upon as a necessary component in the identification of malingering. Green's Medical Symptom Validity Test is a forced-choice test that was created to assist in the identification of suboptimal effort. The goal of this study was to provide clinical evidence for the validity of the Medical Symptom Validity Test using a large, archival clinical sample. The Test of Memory Malingering and the Medical Symptom Validity Test were compared to assess for level of agreement, and were found to agree in their identification of good or poor effort in approximately 75% of cases, which was lower than expected. Scores from the Medical Symptom Validity Test's effort subtests were tested for differences between adult litigants and clinically referred adults. Scores between these groups were different, and it was found that adult litigants obtained scores that were statistically significantly lower than those in the clinical group. Additionally, children were able to obtain results on the Medical Symptom Validity Test subtests that were equivalent to those of adults. Finally, the Wechlser Memory Scales - Third Edition core memory subtests were assessed for their ability to predict outcomes on the Medical Symptom Validity Test Delayed Recognition subtest. This analysis of the adult litigants and adult clinical groups revealed that, collectively, the predictors explained approximately one-third of the variance in scores on the Delayed Recognition subtest. Outcomes from these hypotheses indicated that the Medical Symptom Validity Test was measuring a construct similar to that of the Test of Memory Malingering. Due to the lower than expected level of agreement between the tests, it is recommended that clinicians use more than one measure of effort, which should increase the reliability of poor effort identification. Due to their lower scores the effort subtests, adults similar to those in the adult litigants group can be expected to perform more poorly than those who are clinically referred. Because effort subtest scores were not affected by cognitive or developmental domains, clinically referred children or adult examinees can be expected to obtain scores above cutoffs, regardless of mean age, IQ, or education. Additionally, an examinee's memory will not impact outcome scores on the effort subtests of the Medical Symptom Validity Test. Further research is needed to understand the Medical Symptom Validity Test's ability to accurately identify poor effort with minimal false positives, examine the impact of reading ability on effort subtests, and compare simulators' outcomes to those of a clinical population.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Drexel University, 2004. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 110-124).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, November, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 89-101)

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, November, 2004. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references (p. 89-101)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Montana, 2007. / Title from title screen. Description based on contents viewed Sept. 17, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 102-121).

This dissertation describes the development of the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT). The VSVT was designed to assist in screening for non-optimal performance during neuropsychological evaluation due to malingering, psychiatric disturbance, or other environmental or dispositional factors. Specifically, the VSVT is a test of recognition memory that uses the forced-choice paradigm for detecting biased or random responding. Response latency is also recorded. Results from pilot and follow-up normative studies with experimental and clinical populations are presented. The VSVT was found to have excellent divergent and adequate convergent validity in samples of compensation-seeking and noncompensation-seeking patients. Classifications of experimental participants using below chance performance as a cutoff were consistent with the majority of previous studies in finding 100% specificity but poor sensitivity. A new system wherein a third category is added for questionable (at chance) performance showed greatly increased sensitivity, with no decrement in specificity. Although scores in the questionable range are not unequivocal indicators of malingering, findings suggest good utility for screening or corroborative purposes. A Bayesian diagnostic probability matrix that takes base-rates into account was also provided as a more flexible alternative to absolute cutoff scores. Response latency as a measure of symptom validity was shown to have adequate sensitivity for screening, but less acceptable discriminant validity and lower specificity. Limitations of experimental results and clinical applications of symptom validity tests are discussed. / Graduate