Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Other Contrasting Approaches to Malingering Detection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Malingering, Feigning, and Response Bias in Psychiatric/ Psychological Injury

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 56))

  • 1478 Accesses

Abstract

In the first part of the chapter, I show how the Slick et al. (1999) criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) are considered in Reynolds and Horton (2012a). In the prior chapter of this present monograph, I showed that the chapter by Larrabee (2012a) had considered the Slick et al. criteria as a central nexus of his approach to researching malingering and to its detection in practice. Much to my surprise, in contrast, in the book by Reynolds and Horton (2012a), these criteria were hardly mentioned (only in two pages in one chapter). In particular, Pella et al. (2012) described well the criteria, noted the attempts to change them (Boone 2007; Larrabee et al. 2007), and indicated that it might be premature to implement the recommendations made. In addition, they indicated that the criteria represent a “crude decision-making scheme” that appears to limit the “nuanced scientist-practitioner” model needed in evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen III, L.M., R.L. Conder, P. Green, and D.R. Cox. 1997. CARB’97: Manual for the computerized assessment of response bias. Durham: CogniSyst.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR, 4th ed., text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-V, 5th Ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashendorf, L., M. Constantinou, and R.J. McCaffrey. 2004. The effect of depression and anxiety on the TOMM in community-dwelling older adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19: 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y.S., and A. Tellegen. 2008/2011. MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D.T.R., and N.W. Nelson. 2010. DSM-5 and malingering: A modest proposal. Psychological Injury and Law 3: 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, K.J., K.W. Greve, and G. Glynn. 2005. On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: Lessons from cognitive malingering research. The Spine Journal 5: 404–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, L.M. 1993. Portland Digit Recognition Test manual, 2nd ed. Portland: Private Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, L.M., and S.C. Willis. 1991. Assessment of motivation after financially compensable minor head trauma. Psychology Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 3: 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, K.B. 2007. A reconsideration of the Slick et al. (1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. In Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective, ed. K.B. Boone, 26–49. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, S.C., E.A. Shores, and J.L. Mathias. 2006. Does effort suppress cognition after traumatic brain injury? A re-examination of the evidence for the Word Memory Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 20: 858–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, A.R., A.M. McLearen, R.G. Meyer, and R.L. Denney. 2007. Detection of deception. Sarasota: Professional Resources Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, A.B., S. Meyer, E. David, R. Pella, B.D. Hill, and W.D. Gouvier. 2008. The vulnerability to coaching across measures of effort. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J.N., W.G. Dahlstrom, J.R. Graham, A. Tellegen, and B. Kaemmer. 1989. Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. An interpretive guide. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J.N., J.R. Graham, Y.S. Ben-Porath, A. Tellegen, W.G. Dahlstrom, and G. Kaemmer. 2001. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carone, D.A. 2013. Strategies for non-neuropsychology clinicians to detect noncredible presentations after mild traumatic brain injury. In Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering, ed. D.A. Carone and S.S. Bush, 203–229. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carone, D.A., and S.S. Bush. 2013. Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conder, R., L. Allen, and D. Cox. 1992. Computerized Assessment of Response Bias Test manual. Durham: Cognisyst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etherton, J.L., K.J. Bianchini, K.W. Greve, and M.A. Ciota. 2005. Test of Memory Malingering performance is unaffected by laboratory-induced pain: Implications for clinical use. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 20: 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D., and M.A. Ackley. 1998. Did you think it was going to be easy? Some methodological suggestions for the investigation and development of malingering detection techniques. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, ed. C.R. Reynolds, 1–54. New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D., D.C. Ahern, A.J. Bridges, and L.J. Yonce. 2012a. Assessment of malingering and falsification: Conceptual foundations and sources of error. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 1–67. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D., D.C. Ahern, A.J. Bridges, and L.J. Yonce. 2012b. Assessment of malingering and falsification: Pushing the boundaries of knowledge in research and clinical practice. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 69–120. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, R.I. 1997. Validity Indicator Profile manual. Minnetonka: NCS Assessments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, R.I. 2002. A review of Rey’s strategies for detecting malingered neuropsychological impairment. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology 2: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, R.I. 2012. Malingering/cooperation/effort. In Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, 6th ed, ed. D. Faust, 229–247. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, R.O., M.L. Rohling, P. Green, and W. Ford. 2004. A comparison of WMT, CARB, and TOMM failure rates in non-head injury disability claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19: 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. 2005. Green’s Word Memory Test for Windows: User’s manual. Edmonton: Green’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilmette, T.J. 2013. The role of clinical judgment in symptom validity assessment. In Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering, ed. D.A. Carone and S.S. Bush, 31–43. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, J.M., and R.C. Gur. 2012. Detection of malingering using forced-choice techniques. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 151–167. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hartlage, L.C. 2012. Clinical detection of malingering. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 333–350. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hebben, N., and W. Milberg. 2002. Essentials of neuropsychological assessment. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, R.L., J.J. Sweet, J.E. Morgan, G.J. Larrabee, S.R. Millis, and Conference Participants. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., T. Grisso, and A.M. Goldstein. 2009. Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, L.L.S. 2012. Distinguishing genuine from malingered posttraumatic stress disorder in head injury litigation. In Detecting of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 301–331. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inman, T.H., C.D. Vickery, D.T.R. Berry, D.G. Lamb, C.L. Edwards, and G.T. Smith. 1998. Development and initial validation of a new procedure for evaluating adequacy of effort given during neuropsychological testing: The Letter Memory Test. Psychological Assessment 10: 128–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, G.L. 2008. Assessing for exaggeration, poor effort and malingering. In The neuropsychology handbook, 3rd ed, ed. A.M. Horton Jr. and D. Wedding, 125–182. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A.W., and J.A. Dvoskin. 2011. Evaluation for personal injury claims. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G.J. 2007. Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 22: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G.J. 2012a. Assessment of malingering. In Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach, 2nd ed, ed. G.J. Larrabee, 116–159. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G.J. 2012b. Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G.J., M.F. Greiffenstein, K.W. Greve, and K.J. Bianchini. 2007. Refining diagnostic criteria for malingering. In Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits, ed. G.J. Larrabee, 334–371. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees-Haley, P.R., L.T. English, and W.J. Glenn. 1991. A Fake Bad Scale for the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports 68: 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lezak, M.D. 1995. Neuropsychological assessment, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, R.J., J.K. Lynch, and L.L.S. Howe. 2012. Explaining symptom validity testing to the trier of fact. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 287–299. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, J.E., and M. Volbrecht. 2003. A validation of multiple malingering detection methods in a large clinical sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18: 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H.A. 2001. M-FAST: Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millon, T. 1994. Manual for the MCMI-III. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millon, T., R. Davis, and C. Millon. 1997. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III: Manual, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittenberg, W., C. Patton, E.M. Canyock, and D.C. Condit. 2002. Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 24: 1094–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, D., Wygant, D.B., and Gervais, R.O. 2012. Estimating the accuracy of neurocognitive effort measures in the absence of a “gold standard”. doi: 10.1037/a0028195

  • Nisbett, R.E., and L. Ross. 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, A., E.-J. Wagenmakers, M.D. Lee, H.J. Markowitsch, and M. Piefke. 2012. A Bayesian latent group analysis for detecting poor effort in the assessment of malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 27: 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pankratz, L., and L.M. Binder. 1997. Malingering on intellectual and neuropsychological measures. In Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, 2nd ed, ed. R. Rogers. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pella, R.D., B.D. Hill, A.N. Singh, J.S. Hayes, and W.D. Gouvier. 2012. Noncredible performance in mild traumatic brain injury. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 121–150. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rey, A. 1941. L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique. Archives of Psychology 28: 286–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, A. 1964. L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C.R., and A.M. Horton Jr. 2012a. Detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C.R., and A.M. Horton Jr. 2012b. Clinical acumen, common sense, and data-based decision making in the assessment of dissimulation during head injury litigation. In Detection of malingering during head injury litigation, 2nd ed, ed. C.R. Reynolds and A.M. Horton Jr., 351–369. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (ed.). 2008. Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., R.M. Bagby, and S.E. Dickens. 1992. Structured interview of reported symptoms. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., E.H. Harell, and C.D. Liff. 1993. Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations. Clinical Psychology Review 13: 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., K.W. Sewell, and N.D. Gillard. 2010. Structured interview of reported symptoms, second edition: Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., S.D. Bender, and S.F. Johnson. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., S.D. Bender, and S.F. Johnson. 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 

  • Sbordone, R.J., T.L. Strickland, and A.D. Purisch. 2000. Neuropsychological assessment of the criminal defendant: The significant of cultural factors. In Handbook of cross-cultural neuropsychology, ed. E. Fletcher-Janzen, T.L. Strickland, and C.R. Reynolds, 335–344. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenberg, M.R., D. Dorr, and C.D. Morgan. 2003. The ability of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Third Edition to detect malingering. Psychological Assessment 15: 198–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharland, M.J., and J.D. Gfeller. 2007. A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22: 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D.J., G. Hopp, E. Strauss, and G.B. Thompson. 1997/2005. Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D.J., E.M.S. Sherman, and G.L. Iverson. 1999. Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. Clinical Neuropsychologist 13: 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slick, D.J., J.E. Tan, E.H. Strauss, and D.F. Hultsch. 2004. Detecting malingering: A survey of experts’ practices. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19: 465–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T.N. 1996. TOMM: The Test of Memory Malingering manual. North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagnini, V.L., M.J. Sollman, D.T. Berry, R.P. Granacher, J.A. Clark, R. Burton, M. O’Brien, E. Bacon, and J. Saier. 2006. Known-groups cross-validation of the letter memory test in a compensation-seeking mixed neurologic sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 20: 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallabhajosula, B., and W.G. van Gorp. 2001. Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 29: 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, T.L., K.B. Boone, J.G. Serpa, J. Buehler, and E.A. Ziegler. 2009. Interpreting the meaning of multiple symptom validity test failure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 23: 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G.D., D.T.R. Berry, R.I. Lanyon, and M.P. Murphy. 2009a. Are exaggerated health complaints continuous or categorical? A taxometric analysis of the Health Problem Overstatement Scale. Psychological Assessment 21: 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G.D., D.T.R. Berry, R. Rogers, J.W. Payne, and R.P. Granacher. 2009b. Feigned neurocognitive deficit: Taxon or dimension? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 31: 584–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanez, Y.T., W. Fremouw, J. Tennant, J. Strunk, and K. Coker. 2006. Effects of severe depression on TOMM performance among disability-seeking outpatients. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21: 161–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glendon College, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Gerald Young

Authors
  1. Gerald Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Young, G. (2014). Other Contrasting Approaches to Malingering Detection. In: Malingering, Feigning, and Response Bias in Psychiatric/ Psychological Injury. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 56. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7899-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation