Advertisement

Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 169–183 | Cite as

Detection System for Malingered PTSD and Related Response Biases

  • Gerald Young
Article

Abstract

This article consists mostly of an appendix on the detection of feigned/malingered PTSD that was justified after analysis of extant malingering detection systems and then presented in Young (2014a) as a long table. The submission reviewers at the journal had considered it appropriate that, although it had been published in book format, it is opened up to peer-review commentary to deal with errors of omission and commission, thereby leading to relevant changes, if any, before further use other than as a guide to assessments in the area. In this regard, we solicit reviews, comments, criticisms, suggestions for change, and so on, with a response (rebuttal) to follow. The present malingered PTSD detection system constitutes the first in the field. It incorporates multiple corrections and additions relative to the extant systems on which it is based (MND, Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction; MPRD, Malingered Pain-Related Disability; respectively, Slick, Sherman, & Iverson, 1999; Bianchini, Greve, & Glynn, 2005). It includes very specific rules and procedures both for testing and considering inconsistencies/discrepancies in the file history. Therefore, it is comprehensive and lengthy, or takes about ten times as long to present in tabular format as the MND and MPRD systems on which it is based, (portions in italics indicate what is new to the system). It was constructed to permit the creation of equivalent systems for neurocognition and pain, presented in Young (2014a). The system is useful to mental health professionals not well-versed in psychological testing because, aside from its testing component, it includes extensive procedures for evaluating inconsistencies/discrepancies in examinee files. The system needs evaluation of its reliability and validity, as well as clinical utility.

Keywords

Malingering Psychological Injuries Law PTSD Tests 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest related to this paper. He does mostly rehabilitation and some plaintiff work.

Disclaimer

The author receives royalties from his mentioned 2014 Book.

References

  1. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bianchini, K. J., Greve, K. W., & Glynn, G. (2005). On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: Lessons from cognitive malingering research. The Spine Journal, 5, 404–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biehn, T. L., Elhai, J. D., Seligman, L. D., Tamburrino, M., & Forbes, D. (2013). Underlying dimensions of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder symptoms. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boone, K. B. (2011). Clarification or confusion? A review of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson’s a critical analysis of the MND criteria for feigned cognitive impairment: Implications for forensic practice and research. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briere, J. (2001). Detailed assessment of posttraumatic stress professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Briere, J. (2011). Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI-2) professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  7. Bruns, D., & Disorbio, J. M. (2003). Battery for health improvement 2 manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
  8. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the Restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. An interpretive guide. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, G. (2001). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carone, D. A., & Bush, S. S. (2013). Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).Google Scholar
  12. Demakis, G. J., & Elhai, J. D. (2011). Neuropsychological and psychological aspects of malingered posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Disorbio, J. M., & Bruns, D. (2002). Brief battery for health improvement 2 manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
  14. Frederick, R. I. (1997). Validity indicator profile manual. Minnetonka, MN: NCS Assessments.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, M. J., Keane, T. M., & Resick, P. A. (2014). Handbook of PTSD: Science and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Wygant, D. B., & Green, P. (2007). Development and validation of a Response Bias Scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2. Assessment, 14, 196–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, P. (2005). Green’s word memory test for window’s: User’s manual. Edmonton: Green’s.Google Scholar
  18. Greve, K. W., Curtis, K. L., & Bianchini, K. J. (2013). Symptom validity testing: A summary of recent research. In S. Koffler, J. Morgan, I. S. Baron, & M. F. Greiffenstein (Eds.), Neuropsychology: Science & practice I (pp. 61–94). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. Henry, G. K., Heilbronner, R. L., Mittenberg, W., & Enders, C. (2006). The Henry-Heilbronner Index: A 15-item empirically derived MMPI-2 subscale for identifying probable malingering in personal injury litigants and disability claimants. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 786–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kane, A. W., & Dvoskin, J. A. (2011). Evaluation for personal injury claims. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larrabee, G. J. (2012a). Assessment of malingering. In G. J. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach (2nd ed., pp. 116–159). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Larrabee, G. J. (2012b). Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lees-Haley, P. R., English, L. T., & Glenn, W. J. (1991). A fake bad scale for the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, H. A. (2001). M-FAST: Miller-forensic assessment of symptoms test professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  26. Morel, K. R. (1995). Use of the binomial theorem in detecting fictitious posttraumatic stress disorder. Anxiety Disorders Practice Journal, 2, 55–62.Google Scholar
  27. Morel, K. R. (1998). Development and preliminary validation of a forced-choice test of response bias for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 299–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morey, L. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  29. Morey, L. (2007). Personality assessment inventory: Professional manual (2nd ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  30. Odland, A., Lammy, A., Martin, P., Grote, C., & Mittenberg, W. (2015). Advanced administration and interpretation of multiple validity tests. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds, C. R., & Horton, A. M., Jr. (2012). Detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2: Behavior assessment system for children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992). Structured interview of reported symptoms. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, R., Bender, S. D., & Johnson, S. F. (2011a). A critical analysis of the MND criteria for feigned cognitive impairment: Implications for forensic practice and research. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, R., Bender, S. D., & Johnson, S. F. (2011b). A commentary on the MND model and the Boone critique: “Saying it doesn’t make it so”. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 162–167.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, second edition: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  38. Rubenzer, S. (2009). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Assessing response style and malingering. Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 114–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruff, R. M., & Hibbard, K. M. (2003). RNBI Ruff Neurobehavioral Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  40. Schutte, C., Millis, S., Axelrod, B., & VanDyke, S. (2011). Derivation of a composite measure of embedded symptom validity indices. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25, 454–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sleep, C. E., Petty, J. A., & Wygant, D. B. (2015). Framing the results: Assessment of response bias through select self-report measures in psychological injury evaluations. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slick, D. J., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., & Thompson, G. B. (1997/2005). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  43. Slick, D. J., & Sherman, M. S. (2012). Differential diagnosis of malingering and related clinical presentations. In E. M. S. Sherman & B. L. Brooks (Eds.), Pediatric forensic neuropsychology (pp. 113–135). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Slick, D. J., & Sherman, E. M. S. (2013). Differential diagnosis of malingering. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering (pp. 57–72). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). TOMM: The test of memory malingering manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  47. Vasterling, J. J., Bryant, R. A., & Keane, T. M. (2012). PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  48. Young, G. (2014a). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury: Implications for practice and court. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Young, G. (2014b). Psychological injury and law II: Implications for mental health policy and ethics. Mental Health Law and Policy Journal, 3, 418–470.Google Scholar
  50. Young, G. (2014c). Resource material for ethical psychological assessment of symptom and performance validity, including malingering. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 206–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young, G. (2015). Psychological injuries, law, malingering, PTSD, and a new detection system. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  52. Young, G., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Psychological injury and law I: Causality, malingering, and PTSD. Mental Health Law and Policy Journal, 3, 373–417.Google Scholar
  53. Young, G., Lareau, C., & Pierre, B. (2014). One quintillion ways to have PTSD comorbidity: Recommendations for the disordered DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zoellner, L. A., Bedard-Gilligan, M. A., Jun, J. J., Marks, L. H., & Garcia, N. M. (2013). The evolving construct of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): DSM-5 criteria changes and legal implications. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 277–289.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGlendon College, York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations