Abstract
The process of ascertaining impairments and/or disabilities which pertain to the “personal sphere” of the individual, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and/or psychological-existential damage, poses particular difficulties in relation to the obtainment of scientific evidence. The “immateriality” and the subjective connotation of the “personal sphere” are, in themselves, critical issues.
This chapter presents a novel methodology for the objective ascertainment of psychic and existential damage under civil-tort law, already illustrated by the “IALM Medico-Legal Guidelines” (IALM Working Group on Personal Injury and Damage) [1]. This chapter represents a slightly modified version of an article published in the International Journal of Legal Medicine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Simulation differs from conversion disorder and other somatoform disorders for the intentional production of symptoms.
- 2.
It is possible that a patient suffering from dissociative disorder or dissociative state attributable to another neuropsychiatric disease “produces,” on clinical observation, psychological symptoms (e.g., disorientation, memory loss, lack of reasoning and understanding, disorders of ideation, pseudodementia) that are not based on an actual decrease in cognitive and/or another objectivizable organic dysfunction.
- 3.
Simulation differs from factitious disorder in that the motivation as to the production of the symptom is constituted by an external stimulus, whereas in factitious disorder external incentives are absent.
- 4.
Intentional production of symptoms and physical complaints aimed at achieving attention and specialized healthcare.
- 5.
Similar to the preceding, it is distinguished by the characteristic that the perpetrator induces disorders in another person.
- 6.
Psychogenic pseudodementia or hysterical twilight state, typically observed in prisons. It was initially recognized in prisoners awaiting execution, with marked decrease of higher cognitive functions (absurd and evasive language, serious amnesia, dissolution of each semantic competence, inability to perform logical-deductive reasoning, also basic), as against apparently preserved consciousness, understanding, and orientation.
- 7.
Cutoff validated by experimental studies amounting to 9/15, below which malingering is identified
- 8.
Cutoff validated by experimental studies amounting to 6/15, below which malingering is identified
- 9.
Cutoff validated by experimental studies amounting to 180 s for counting the ungrouped dots and 130 s for the grouped dots
- 10.
Cutoff > 14 for the identification of malingering
- 11.
Cutoff <93 % for the identification of malingering
- 12.
Cutoff ≤75 for the identification of malingering
- 13.
Cutoff ≤44 for the identification of malingering
- 14.
Cutoff <50 % for the identification of malingering
- 15.
Cutoff ≤50 % for the identification of malingering
- 16.
Cutoff < 8.50 for the identification of malingering
References
Ferrara SD, Baccino E, Boscolo-Berto R, Comandè G, Domenici R, Hernàndez-Cueto C, Gulmen MK, Mendelson G, Montisci M, Norelli GA, Pinchi V, Ranavaya M, Shokry DA, Sterzik V, Vermylen Y, Vieira DN, Viel G, Zoja R (2016) Padova Charter on personal injury and damage under civil-tort law: medico-legal guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med 130(1):1–12
Mendelson G, Mendelson D (1996) Malingering. Aust Lawyer 31(7):26–27
Mendelson G, Mendelson D (1993) Legal and psychiatric aspects of malingering. J Law Med 1:28–34
Inman TH, Berry DT (2002) Cross-validation of indicators of malingering a comparison of nine neuropsychological tests, four tests of malingering, and behavioral observations. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17(1):1–23
Morse CL, Douglas-Newman K, Mandel S, Swirsky-Sacchetti T (2013) Utility of the Rey-15 recognition trial to detect invalid performance in a forensic neuropsychological sample. Clin Neuropsychol 27(8):1395–1407
Boone KB, Lu P, Back C, King C, Lee A, Philpott L, Shamieh E, Warner-Chacon K (2002) Sensitivity and specificity of the Rey Dot Counting Test in patients with suspect effort and various clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17(7):625–642
Boone KB, Lu P, Sherman D, Palmer B, Back C, Shamieh E, Warner-Chacon K, Berman NG (2000) Validation of a new technique to detect malingering of cognitive symptoms: the b Test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 15(3):227–241
Roberson CJ, Boone KB, Goldberg H, Miora D, Cottingham M, Victor T, Ziegler E, Zeller M, Wright M (2013) Cross validation of the b Test in a large known groups sample. Clin Neuropsychol 27(3):495–508
Edens JF, Poythress NG, Watkins-Clay MM (2007) Detection of malingering in psychiatric unit and general population prison inmates: a comparison of the PAI, SIMS, and SIRS. J Pers Assess 88(1):33–42
Rogers R, Robinson EV, Gillard ND (2014) The SIMS Screen for feigned mental disorders: the development of detection-based scales. Behav Sci Law 32(4):455–466
Lange RT, Sullivan KA, Scott C (2010) Comparison of MMPI-2 and PAI validity indicators to detect feigned depression and PTSD symptom reporting. Psychiatry Res 176(2–3):229–235
Mason LH, Shandera-Ochsner AL, Williamson KD, Harp JP, Edmundson M, Berry DT, High WM Jr (2013) Accuracy of MMPI-2-RF validity scales for identifying feigned PTSD symptoms, random responding, and genuine PTSD. J Pers Assess 95(6):585–593
Gierok SD, Dickson AL, Cole JA (2005) Performance of forensic and non-forensic adult psychiatric inpatients on the Test of Memory Malingering. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 20(6):755–760
Greub BL, Suhr JA (2006) The validity of the letter memory test as a measure of memory malingering: robustness to coaching. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 21(4):249–254
Greve KW, Bianchini KJ, Heinly MT, Love JM, Swift DA, Ciota M (2008) Classification accuracy of the Portland digit recognition test in persons claiming exposure to environmental and industrial toxins. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 23(3):341–350
Kelly PJ, Baker GA, van den Broek MD, Jackson H, Humphries G (2005) The detection of malingering in memory performance: the sensitivity and specificity of four measures in a UK population. Br J Clin Psychol 44(3):333–341
Hom J, Denney RL (2002) Detection of response bias in forensic neuropsychology. Haworth Medical Press, New York
Morgan JE, Sweet JJ (2009) Neuropsychology of malingering casebook. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/Psychology Press, New York
Stracciari A, Bianchi A, Sartori G (2010) Neuropsicologia forense. Il Mulino Editore, Bologna
Young G (2014) Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury. Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht
Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(2):197–216
Sartori G, Agosta S, Zogmaister C, Ferrara SD, Castiello U (2008) How to accurately detect autobiographical events. Psychol Sci 19(8):772–780
Agosta S, Sartori G (2013) The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol 4:519
Hu X, Rosenfeld PJ (2012) Combining the P300-complex trial-based Concealed Information test and the reaction time-based autobiographical Implicit Association Test in concealed memory detection. Psychophysiology 49:1090–1100
Hu X, Rosenfeld JP, Bodenhausen GV (2012) Combating automatic autobiographical associations: the effect of instruction and training in strategically concealing information in the autobiographical implicit association test. Psychol Sci 23:1079–1085
Freng S, Kehn A (2013) Determining true and false witnessed events: can an eyewitness-implicit association test distinguish between the seen and unseen? Psychiatry Psychol Law 20:761–780
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
1 Flowcharts (Supplemental Electronic Material)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ferrara, S.D. et al. (2016). A Novel Methodology for the Objective Ascertainment of Psychic and Existential Damage. In: Ferrara, S., Boscolo-Berto, R., Viel, G. (eds) Personal Injury and Damage Ascertainment under Civil Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29812-2_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29812-2_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29810-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29812-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)