Malingering

Abstract: Part 1. Conceptual Framework. R. Rogers, An Introduction to Response Styles. R. Rogers, Detection Strategies for Malingering and Defensiveness. Part 2. Diagnostic Issues. M.J. Vitacco, Syndromes Associated with Deception. P.J. Resnick, J.L. Knoll, IV, Malingered Psychosis. S.D. Bender, Malingered Traumatic Brain Injuries. L.A.R. Stein, R. Rogers, Denial and Misreporting of Substance Abuse. P.J. Resnick, S. West, J.W. Payne, Malingering of Posttraumatic Disorders. J.C. Hamilton, M.D. Feldman, A.J. Cunnien, Factitious Disorder in Medical and Psychiatric Practices. R.P. Grancher, Jr., D.T.R. Berry, Feigned Medical Presentations. Part 3. Psychometric Methods. R.L. Greene, Malingering and Defensiveness on the MMPI-2. M. Sellbom, R.M. Bagby, Response Styles on Multiscale Inventories. K.W. Sewell, Dissimulation on Projective Measures. J.J. Sweet, D.C. Condit, N.W. Nelson, Feigned Amnesia and Memory Loss. D.T.R. Berry, L.J. Schipper, Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment Using Standard Neuropsychological Tests. Part 4. Specialized Methods. W.G. Iacono, C.J. Patrick, Assessing Deception: Polygraph Techniques and Integrity Testing. E. Geraerts, R.J. McNally, Assessment of Recovered and False Memories. R.I. Lanyon, M.L. Thomas, Detecting Deception in Sex Offender Assessment. R. Rogers, Structured Interviews and Dissimulation. G.P. Smith, Brief Screening Measures for the Detection of Feigned Psychopathology. Part 5. Specialized Applications. R.T. Salekin, F.A. Kubak, Z. Lee, Deception in Children and Adolescents. R.K. Otto, Challenges and Advances in Assessment of Response Styles in Forensic Examination Contexts. R.L. Jackson, C. Crawford, Response Styles in the Assessment of Law Enforcement. Part 6. Summary. R. Rogers, Current Status of Clinical Methods. R. Rogers, Researching Response Styles.

Abstract: Over the past 10 years, widespread and concerted research efforts have led to increasingly sophisticated and efficient methods and instruments for detecting exaggeration or fabrication of cognitive dysfunction. Despite these psychometric advances, the process of diagnosing malingering remains difficult and largely idiosyncratic. This article presents a proposed set of diagnostic criteria that define psychometric, behavioral, and collateral data indicative of possible, probable, and definite malingering of cognitive dysfunction, for use in clinical practice and for defining populations for clinical research. Relevant literature is reviewed, and limitations and benefits of the proposed criteria are discussed.

Abstract: During the past two decades clinical and research efforts have led to increasingly sophisticated and effective methods and instruments designed to detect exaggeration or fabrication of neuropsychological dysfunction, as well as somatic and psychological symptom complaints. A vast literature based on relevant research has emerged and substantial portions of professional meetings attended by clinical neuropsychologists have addressed topics related to malingering (Sweet, King, Malina, Bergman, & Simmons, 2002). Yet, despite these extensive activities, understanding the need for methods of detecting problematic effort and response bias and addressing the presence or absence of malingering has proven challenging for practitioners. A consensus conference, comprised of national and international experts in clinical neuropsychology, was held at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) for the purposes of refinement of critical issues in this area. This consensus statement documents the current state of knowledge and recommendations of expert clinical neuropsychologists and is intended to assist clinicians and researchers with regard to the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.

Abstract: A large sample of chronic postconcussive patients with and without overt malingering signs was compared with objectively brain-injured patients on common episodic memory and malingered amnesia measures. Probable malingerers and traumatically brain-injured subjects were not differentiated on popular episodic recall tests. In contrast, probable malingerers performed poorly on the Rey 15-Item, Rey Word Recognition List, Reliable Digit Span, Portland Digit Recognition Test, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test recognition trial. These findings validated both commonly cited malingering measures and newly introduced methods of classifying malingering in real-world clinical samples. The base rate for malingering in chronically complaining mild head injury patients may be much larger than previously assumed.