Objective assessment of malingering in forensic inpatients Yates, K. F., & Otis, D. B (original) (raw)
Related papers
Psychological Assessment, 2010
The current study examined the utility of the recently released Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) validity scales to detect feigned psychopathology in a criminal forensic setting. We used a known-groups design with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) as the external criterion to determine groups of probable malingering versus nonmalingering. A final sample of 125 criminal defendants, who were administered both the SIRS and the MMPI-2-RF during their evaluations, was examined. The results indicated that the two MMPI-2-RF validity scales specifically designed to detect overreported psychopathology, F-r and F P-r, best differentiated between the malingering and nonmalingering groups. These scales added incremental predictive utility to one another in this differentiation. Classification accuracy statistics substantiated the recommended cut scores in the MMPI-2-RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) in this forensic setting. Implications for these results in terms of forensic assessment and detection of malingering are discussed.
Utility of the Deceptive-Subtle Items in the Detection of Malingering
The aim of this study was to assess the capacity of a recently developed set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) subtle items-the Deceptive Subtle scale (DS)-to detect fake-bad responding on the MMPI-2. relative to the capacity of the F scale and the sum of obvious items (Ob) and sum of subtle items (Su) scales. The MMPI-2 was administered to a sample of research participants asked to fake-bad (n = 74), and compared to psychiatric outpatients (n = 100) and nonclinical participants (n = 100) asked to respond honestly. Although the DS scale proved to be a better predictor of fake-bad response style than Su, and comparable to that of Ob, its predictive capacity was substantially less than that of F. Future research is needed to explore the potentially unique contribution of both DS and Ob to assess different strategies of faking-bad.
Detecting Malingered and Defensive Responding on the MMPI-2 in a Forensic Inpatient Sample
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1994
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the various validity scales and indices on the MMPI-2 to detect malingered (fake-bad), and defensive (fake-good) responding. The entire sample consisted of 165 college students who completed the MMPI-2 under one of three conditions--fake-bad, fake-good, or respond honestly--and 173 forensic inpatients who completed the test as part of a routine evaluation. To detect faking-good and faking-bad, cutting scores for the validity scales and indices were established from the fake-good and fake-bad groups and were compared to the honest and patient groups. Corresponding sensitivity and specificity rates were then determined. Four validity indicators appeared to be moderately effective-at detecting fake-bad profiles: F, F--K, the MMPI-2 version of revised Gough Dissimulation Scale, and Wiener's Obvious-Subtle index, whereas the fake-good indicators were much less effective--only F--K and the Obvious-Subtle index appeared to have moderate utility.
Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 2014
Recently, the dichotomy between performance validity tests (PVT) and symptom validity tests (SVT) has been suggested to differentiate between invalid performance and invalid self-report, respectively. PVTs are typically used to identify malingered cognitive impairment, while SVTs identify malingered psychological or somatic symptoms. It is assumed that people can malinger different types of problems, but the impact of modes of reporting invalidly has been largely unexplored. A mixed neurological sample (n ¼ 130) was tested with the Test of Memory Malingering, the Forced Recognition part of the California Verbal Learning Test, and the self-report Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms (SIMS). Confirmatory factor analyses testing both method-and content-based factor models found best fit for the method-based division. Regression analyses of other self-rating and performance-based tests provided further support for the importance of type of methods used to collect information. While acknowledging the types of symptoms malingered, the clinician is advised also to consider how information is gathered by using both PVTs and SVTs. SIMS is a good candidate for a stand-alone SVT, although the utility of the Low Intelligence subscale is questionable as a validity measure.
The SIRS as a measure of malingering: A validation study with a correctional sample
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1990
A simulation design was used to test the validity of the SIRS as a structured interview for the assessment ofmatingering. A correctional sample (25 simulators zm'&26 controls) was compared to previous validation research (Rogers et al., 1989) which had employed clinical and community samples. Results indicated that six of the 13 SIRS scales, as well as overall item endorsement, differed consistently between honest and simulathglmalingehg conditions across correctional, clinical, and community settings. In addition, the suggestion that sociopaths may be more effective malingerers was not supported by the SIRS data. The assessment of malingering is a clinically demanding task in establishing both the authenticity of presented symptoms and the motivation for deliberate feigning. In the determination of malingering, Rogers (1988) observed that differences in self-presentation may reflect the particular method of evaluation (i.e., interviews versus psychometric measures), with unacceptably low correspondence between clinical methods (see, for example, Johnson et al., 1977). As one approach to the disparities among methods, Schretlen (1 988) recently advocated the use of traditional testing, rather than standard psychiatric interview techniques, in the determination of malingering. However, fundamental problems exist with both approaches. First, most simulation studies with psychometric measures lack experimental rigor (see Rogers, 1987). Second, the current criteria for malingering (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) require difficult distinctions in motivation (for example, differential diagnosis with factitious disorders; see Rogers et al., in press), which do not lend themselves to psychological testing. Third, unstructured interviews are in idiosyncratic and unvalidated approach in which the detection of malingering is largely a hit-or-miss proposition. Fourth, the recent development of specialized measures,
Factors Differentiating Successful Versus Unsuccessful Malingerers
Journal of Personality Assessment, 2001
Relatively little is known about the processes in which "successful" malingerers engage to avoid detection. This study summarizes the response strategies used by participants (N = 540) instructed to feign a specific mental disorder while completing various self-report instruments designed to detect faking. Postexperiment questionnaires indicated that those who were able to appear symptomatic while avoiding being detected as feigning (n = 60) were more likely to endorse a lower rate of legitimate symptoms, to avoid overly unusual or bizarre items, and to base their responses on their own personal experiences.
An MMPI‐based empirical model of malingering and deception
Behavioral Sciences & …, 1990
The empirically-based model of malingering and deception described by Rogers (1984b) was operationalized using MMPI and clinical interview data. Subjects (N = 159) were patients committed to an inpatient forensic hospital as 'Incompetent to Stand Trial' or 'Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity'. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for the 11 criteria used to define response styles. Each subject was categorized into one of five response style groups: 'Reliable', 'Malingering', 'Defensive', 'Irrelevant', or 'Unclassifiable'. Factor analysis of the rating criteria yielded four factors, three of which are comparable to the assigned groups, providing some validation for the constructs underlying these groups.