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

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.

Universities have increasingly sought to provide accommodative services to students with learning disorders and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in recent decades thereby creating a need for diagnostic batteries designed to evaluate cognitive abilities relevant to academic performance. Given that accommodative services (extended time on tests, alternate test forms, etc.) provide incentive to distort impairment steps should be taken to estimate the rate at which students distort impairment and to evaluate the accuracy with which symptom distortion is identified. In order to address these concerns, the Word-Memory Test, Test of Memory Malingering, and Fake Bad Scale (of the MMPI-2) were compared in terms of their clinical utility in a university sample within a two-part study. In the first portion of the study, an analogue design (which included a control group (n = 29) and an experimental group (n = 30) that was asked to simulate an academic disability) was used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of each measure. In the second portion of this study, scores were collected for 121 consecutively presenting students who were evaluated for academic difficulty at a large private university. Failure rates on measures of malingering placed the base rate of malingering within this population between 10 and 25 percent. The Word-Memory Test (WMT) demonstrated the most robust sensitivity and specificity. The modest sensitivity of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) can be partially explained by the ease with which the measure is completed by university students as well as the format of its presentation. Although the scores on Fake Bad Scale (FBS) are modestly correlated with group membership (between controls and simulators), its use should be discouraged in this context due to poor sensitivity and to high rates of false positives.

No description available.