Detecting malingering: a survey of experts? practices

Daniel J. Slick

201 citations0/0 files storedArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Traumatic Brain Injury Research Psychological Testing and Assessment

Abstract

A survey addressing practices of 'expert' neuropsychologists in handling financial compensation claim or personal injury litigation cases was carried out. Potential participants were identified by publication history. Responses were obtained from 24 out of the 39 neuropsychologists who were surveyed. Approximately 79% of the respondents reported using at least one specialized technique for detecting malingering in every litigant assessment. Half stated that they always give specialized tests at the beginning of the assessment. The Rey 15-Item test and the Test of Memory Malingering were the most frequently reported measures. Respondents also reported frequent use of 'malingering' indexes from standard neuropsychological tests. Reported base-rates varied, but the majority of respondents indicated that at least 10% of the litigants they assessed in the last year were definitely malingering. Respondents were split on the practice of routinely giving warnings at the outset of assessments that suboptimal performance may be detected. However, when the client's motivational status was suspect, more than half (58.3%) altered their assessment routine at least on some occasions, by encouraging good effort (70.8%) or administering additional SVTs. A minority directly confronted or warned clients (25%), terminated the examination earlier than planned (16.6%), or contacted the referring attorney immediately (29.2%). Respondents almost always stated some opinion regarding indicators of invalidity in written reports (95%). However, 41.7% rarely used the term 'malingering' and 12.5% never used the term. Most respondents (>80%) instead stated that the test results are invalid, inconsistent with the severity of the injury or indicative of exaggeration.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 201 citations exist upstream.

References

1991A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary 1993A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary 1995Neuropsychological assessment, 3rd ed.1994Neuropsychological Assessment 1999Diagnostic Criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction: Proposed Standards for Clinical Practice and Research 1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.1994Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample.2000The Test of Memory Malingering 2 (TOMM-2)

Cited by

2008Detecting Malingering in Traumatic Brain Injury and Chronic Pain: A Comparison of Three Forced-Choice Symptom Validity Tests 2015Malingering in Forensic Disability-Related Assessments: Prevalence 15 ± 15 %2011Use of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Digit Span subtest for malingering detection: A meta-analytic review 2013Symptom Validity and Neuropsychological Assessment: A Survey of Practices and Beliefs of Neuropsychologists in Six European Countries 2011Are Embedded Validity Indices Equivalent to Free-Standing Symptom Validity Tests?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.