Detection of Feigned Psychosis with the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A Study of Coached and Uncoached Simulators

  • Marko Jelicic
  • Annemarie Hessels
  • Harald Merckelbach
Article

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychosis in naïve, informed, and coached participants. Sixty undergraduate students were administered the SIMS and a number of filler questionnaires and asked to fill out the questionnaire honestly (controls; n = 15) or instructed to malinger psychosis because they were standing trial for a serious offense. Before they completed the SIMS, instructed malingerers either received no further information (naïve malingerers; n = 15), some information about psychotic symptoms (informed malingerers; n = 15), or some information about psychosis and a warning not to exaggerate symptoms (coached malingerers; n = 15). Even in the group of coached malingerers, the SIMS had acceptable sensitivity and specificity rates. These findings suggest that the SIMS may be of value in forensic assessments.

Key words

malingering psychosis coaching forensic assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamsen, D. (1985). Confessions of the Son of Sam. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beaber, R. J., Marston, A., Michelli, J., & Mills, M. J. (1985). A brief test for measuring malingering in schizophrenic individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1478–1481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunn, T. M., Shear, P. K., Howe, S., & Ris, D. M. (2003). Detecting neuropsychological malingering: Effects of coaching and information. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 121–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Edens, J. F., Otto, R. K., & Dwyer, T. (1999). Utility of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology in identifying persons motivated to malinger psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 387–396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fauteck, P. K. (1995). Detecting the malingering of psychosis in offenders: No easy solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 3–18.Google Scholar
  6. Hilsabeck, R. C., LeCompte, D. C., Marks, A. R., & Grafman, J. (2001). The Word Completion Memory Test (WCMT): A new test to detect malingered memory deficits. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 669–677.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jaffe, M. E., & Sharma, K. K. (1998). Malingering uncommon psychiatric symptoms among defendants charged under California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” Law. Journal of Forensic Science, 43, 549–555.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, J. L., Simcox, A. M., & Berry, D. T. R. (2002). Screening for feigned psychiatric symptoms in a forensic sample by using the MMPI-2 and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Psychological Assessment, 14, 170–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Merckelbach, H., & Smith, G. P. (2003). Diagnostic accuracy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in detecting instructed malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 145–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Powell, M. R., Gfeller, J. D., Hendricks, B. L., & Sharland, M. (2004). Detecting symptom— and test—coached simulators with the Test of Memory Malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 693–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Resnick, P. J. (1999). The detection of malingered psychosis. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 22, 159–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rogers, R., Harrell, E. H., & Liff, C. D. (1993). Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 255–274.Google Scholar
  13. Rogers, R., Hinds, J. D., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). Feigning psychopathology among adolescent offenders: Validation of the SIRS, MMPI-A, and SIMS. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 244–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenfeld, B., Sands, S. A., & Van Gorp, W. G. (2000). Have we forgotten the base rate problem? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 349–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenhan, D. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 172, 250–258.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, G. P. (1997). Assessment of malingering with self-report instruments. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, 2nd ed. (pp. 351–370). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, G. P., & Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 183–189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Spitzer, R. L. (1975). On pseudoscience in science, logic in remission, and psychiatric diagnosis: A critique on Rosenhan’s “On being sane in insane places.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 442–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Youngjohn, J. R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluation. Assessment, 2, 279–283.Google Scholar
  21. Youngjohn, J. R., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Binder, L. M. (1999). Comment: Warning malingerers produces more sophisticated malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 511–515.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Jelicic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annemarie Hessels
    • 1
  • Harald Merckelbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations