Advertisement

Assessment of Malingering and Falsification: Pushing the Boundaries of Knowledge in Research and Clinical Practice

  • David Faust
  • David C. Ahern
  • Ana J. Bridges
  • Leslie J. Yonce
Chapter

Abstract

In  Chapter 1 we presented a framework for conceptualizing malingering and identifying key clinical and research issues, in particular the need to focus on ambiguous cases and to work toward reducing ­ongoing sources of error. Various issues and sources of error were covered in detail. In this chapter, we extend our discussion of clinical and research issues. In particular, we provide more in depth coverage of pressing research needs, laying out what we believe to be key conceptual components and challenges and making many suggestions we hope might prove fruitful. We end by touching on a series of caveats for clinical and forensic practice and research. The third section of Table 1.1 in  Chapter 1 (see page 21) lists additional factors that contribute to false-negative and false-­positive errors and sets forth what we believe to be high priorities for continued or concentrated research efforts. We will cover these entries in order, some of which are broadly recognized but others of which have been less completely or minimally described.

Keywords

Head Injury Standard Deviation Base Rate Neuropsychological Evaluation Incremental Validity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahern, D. C. (2010). Extreme group comparisons: Nature, prevalence, and impact on psychological research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.Google Scholar
  2. Baade, L. E., & Schoenberg, M. R. (2004). A proposed method to estimate premorbid intelligence utilizing group achievement measures from school records. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 227–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, L. M., Iverson, G. L., & Brooks, B. L. (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal” neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 31–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder, L. M., & Rohling, M. L. (1996). Money matters: A meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed-head injury. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 7–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridges, A. J., Faust, D., & Ahern, D. (2009). Methods for the evaluation of sexually abused children: Reframing the clinician’s task and recognizing its disparity with research on indicators. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations (pp. 21–47). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, B. L., Iverson, G. L., Sherman, E. M. S., & Holdnack, J. A. (2009). Healthy children and adolescents obtain some low scores across a battery of memory tests. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 613–617.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, B. L., Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., Iverson, G. L., & Slick, D. J. (2009). Developments in neuropsychological assessment: Refining psychometric and clinical interpretive methods. Canadian Psychology, 50, 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation, revised edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawes, R. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1966). Mixed group validation: A method for determining the validity of diagnostic signs without using criterion groups. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 63–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (1995). Intrasubtest scatter on the WISC-III for various clinical samples vs. the standardization sample: An examination of WISC folklore. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faust, D. (1997). Of science, meta-science, and clinical practice: The generalization of a generalization to a particular. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 331–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faust, D. (2011). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Faust, D., & Ahern, D. C. (2011). Clinical judgment and prediction. In D. Faust, Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (6th ed.) (pp. 147–208). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Faust, D., Ahern, D. C., & Bridges, A. J. (2011). Neuropsychological (brain damage) assessment. In D. Faust, Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (6th ed.) (pp. 363–469). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Faust, D., Bridges, A. J., & Ahern, D. (2009a). Methods for the evaluation of sexually abused children: Issues and needed features for abuse indicators. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations (pp. 3–19). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Faust, D., Bridges, A. J., & Ahern, D. (2009b). Methods for the evaluation of sexually abused children: Suggestions for clinical work and research. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations (pp. 49–66). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Frederick, R. I., & Bowden, S. C. (2009). The test validation summary. Assessment, 16, 215–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gough, H. G. (1954). Some common misconceptions about neuroticism. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18, 287–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene, R. L. (2011). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An interpretive manual (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., & Millis, S. R. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyman, R. (1977). “Cold reading”: How to convince strangers that you know all about them. The Zetetic, 1, 18–37.Google Scholar
  25. Kareken, D. A., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Human judgment and estimation of premorbid intellectual function. Psychological Assessment, 6, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244.Google Scholar
  27. Meehl, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meehl, P. E. (1999). Clarifications about taxometric method. Journal of Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meehl, P. E. (2001). Comorbidity and taxometrics. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehl, P. E. (2004). What’s in a taxon? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orme, D., Ree, M. J., & Rioux, P. (2001). Premorbid IQ estimates from a multiple aptitude test battery: Regression vs. equating. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 679–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds, C. R. (1997). Postscripts on premorbid ability estimation: Conceptual addenda and a few words on alternative and conditional approaches. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 769–778.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Common sense, clinicians, and actuarialism in the detection of malingering during head injury litigation. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (pp. 261–286). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, R. (1990a). Development of a new classificatory model of malingering. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18, 323–333.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, R. (1990b). Models of feigned mental illness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10, 160–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schretlen, D. J., Buffington, A. L. H., Meyer, S. M., & Pearlson, G. D. (2005). The use of word-reading to estimate “premorbid” ability in cognitive domains other than intelligence. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 784–787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schretlen, D. J., Munro, C. A., Anthony, J. C., & Pearlson, G. D. (2003). Examining the range of normal intraindividual variability in neuropsychological test performance. Journal of the International Neuro­psychological Society, 9, 864–870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vickery, C. D., Berry, D. T. R., Inman, T. H., Harris, M. J., & Orey, S. A. (2001). Detection of inadequate effort on neuropsychological testing: A meta-analytic review of selected procedures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 45–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, fourth edition: Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, J. M. (1997). The prediction of premorbid memory ability. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 745–756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, J. M. (1998). The malingering of memory disorder. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (pp. 105–132). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  45. Wong, J. L., Regennitter, R. P., & Barris, F. (1994). Base rates and simulated symptoms of mild head injury among normals. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 411–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Faust
    • 1
    • 2
  • David C. Ahern
    • 3
  • Ana J. Bridges
    • 4
  • Leslie J. Yonce
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorAlpert Medical School of Brown UniversityKingston, ProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Providence Veterans Affairs Medical CenterAlpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  5. 5.MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations