Malingering

Abstract: Ethical dilemmas surrounding research in which investigators evaluate the efficacy of various «coaching» strategies designed to «outsmart» validity scales are discussed. On the one hand, it is important for psychologists who interpret these scales to know the extent to which they are susceptible to coached malingering. On the other hand, information contained in such articles (i.e., descriptions of coaching strategies and evaluations of their efficacy) may be misused. This issue is discussed in the context of competing demands between (a) the requirement of the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct that psychologists maintain the integrity and security of tests and (b) the need to provide detailed descriptions of research procedures in scientific articles

Abstract: A young woman with seizures and status epilepticus sought and obtained hospitalization in at least 25 hospitals in the province of Quebec between 1980 and 1987. She was thought to have uncontrolled epilepsy; her treatment led to intoxication with anticonvulsants and once to anesthesia for three consecutive periods of 7 days each. The nonepileptic nature of her attacks was proven and a diagnosis of Munchausen9s syndrome made. She was transferred to a psychiatric center where she committed suicide. We found no documented cases of epileptic chronic factitious disorder in the literature.

Abstract: Since the early 2000s concern has increased that college students might feign ADHD in pursuit of academic accommodations and stimulant medication. In response, several studies have validated tests for use in differentiating feigned from genuine ADHD. Although results have generally been positive, relatively few publications have addressed the possible impact of the presence of psychological disorders comorbid with ADHD. Because ADHD is thought to have accompanying conditions at rates of 50% and higher, it is important to determine if the additional psychological disorders might compromise the accuracy of feigning detection measures. The present study extended the findings of Jasinski et al. (2011) to examine the efficacy of various measures in the context of feigned versus genuine ADHD with comorbid psychological disorders in undergraduate students. Two clinical groups (ADHD only and ADHD + comorbid psychological disorder) were contrasted with two non-clinical groups (normal controls answering honestly and normal participants feigning ADHD). Extending previous research to individuals with ADHD and either an anxiety or learning disorder, performance validity tests such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), the Letter Memory Test (LMT), and the Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT) were effective in differentiating both ADHD groups from normal participants feigning ADHD. However, the Digit Memory Test (DMT) underperformed in this study, as did embedded validity indices from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) and Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement-III (WJ-III).

Abstract: Two of the most widely used measures for the assessment of malingering in forensic populations are the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS). The underlying dimensions of the SIRS have been well established in the literature, but the structure of the M-FAST remains relatively untested. Understanding of its dimensions is critical for construct validity and guiding its proper use. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to provide evidence of a single parsimonious malingering factor to account for the covariation of the M-FAST items in a sample of 244 forensic patients. In addition, the model was cross-validated with an independent sample of 210 forensic patients. Finally, the M-FAST factor was modeled in conjunction with two factors of the SIRS. Results provide further validation of the underlying detection strategy found in the M-FAST.