Search

The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) is a newly developed, self-administered test designed to assist practitioners evaluating the credibility of various symptom presentations. In a recent simulation study comparing real patients against experimental feigners, its classification accuracy compared favorably with that of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology and generalized better to different types of symptom reports (i.e., mood- or trauma-related vs. psychosis-related). Extending on these findings, this sensitivity study tested whether the IOP-29 would be similarly accurate in detecting feigning of conditions related to depression, mild traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and schizophrenia. Additionally, it also evaluated the susceptibility of the IOP-29 to uncooperative or random-like responding. Examination of 1,200 IOP-29 records from 400 nonclinical Italian volunteers who took the Italian version of the IOP-29 3 times, in 3 different conditions (i.e., standard instructions, feigned disorder, and random-like responding), confirmed that the IOP-29 might be similarly valid across a wide variety of mental health and cognitive complaints. Indeed, using the standard a priori cutoff of the IOP-29 (i.e., ≥ .50), sensitivity estimates ranged from .86 (for feigned PTSD) to .95 (for feigned depression) and did not significantly differ from one symptom presentation to another. These findings were obtained despite the fact that participants were coached to respond in a believable manner. Interestingly, the random-like responding generated extremely variable IOP-29 scores.

Objective: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) history have high rates of performance validity test (PVT) failure. The study aimed to determine whether those with scores in the invalid versus valid range on PVTs show similar benefit from psychotherapy and if psychotherapy improves PVT performance., Method: Veterans (N = 100) with PTSD, mild-to-moderate TBI history, and cognitive complaints underwent neuropsychological testing at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month post-treatment. Veterans were randomly assigned to cognitive processing therapy (CPT) or a novel hybrid intervention integrating CPT with TBI psychoeducation and cognitive rehabilitation strategies from Cognitive Symptom Management and Rehabilitation Therapy (CogSMART). Performance below standard cutoffs on any PVT trial across three different PVT measures was considered invalid (PVT-Fail), whereas performance above cutoffs on all measures was considered valid (PVT-Pass)., Results: Although both PVT groups exhibited clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, the PVT-Pass group demonstrated greater symptom reduction than the PVT-Fail group. Measures of post-concussive and depressive symptoms improved to a similar degree across groups. Treatment condition did not moderate these results. Rate of valid test performance increased from baseline to follow-up across conditions, with a stronger effect in the SMART-CPT compared to CPT condition., Conclusion: Both PVT groups experienced improved psychological symptoms following treatment. Veterans who failed PVTs at baseline demonstrated better test engagement following treatment, resulting in higher rates of valid PVTs at follow-up. Veterans with invalid PVTs should be enrolled in trauma-focused treatment and may benefit from neuropsychological assessment after, rather than before, treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate a visual acuity test (VAT) with unexpected optotypes to detect malingering., Methods: We tested two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 individuals with normal best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Group 2 included participants with ocular diseases and reduced BCVA. All subjects underwent a VAT proposed by Gräf and Roesen to assess suspected malingering. This test used 36 charts with one Landolt-C per page. The first 20 optotypes were Landolt-Cs, while at positions 21, 26, 30, and 34 closed rings were presented. The testing distance was adapted to 50% of the test person's visual acuity. The test person was requested to name the gap direction of the Landolt-C within 3 s. The complete testing conversation was recorded digitally to determine response latency for each optotype from the audio tracks., Results: The average response time was 0.46 s in group 1 and 0.45 s in group 2 for the first 20 Landolt-Cs. In both groups the response time was significantly extended (p < 0.05) for the first closed ring compared to the mean of the first 20 Landolt-Cs, (group 1: 2.9 s; group 2: 2.3 s). The following three closed rings had also longer response times. However, these differences were not significant., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the proposed test may be helpful to evaluate ocular malingering. The testing procedure appeared to be feasible and showed good repeatability. The fast training effect may be a limitation for malingering detection.

Objective: To investigate longitudinal changes in cortical and subcortical volumes in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) and to evaluate whether such changes were associated with self-reported post-concussive symptoms, global functional outcomes and neuropsychological functioning., Methods: This was a prospecitve, longitudinal cohort study of patients with complicated (i.e presence of intracranial abnormalities on the day of injury CT) and uncomplicated MTBI (i.e, absence of intracranial abnormalities). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at approximately 4 weeks and 12 months. We utilized a 3T MRI system, cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation by FreeSurfer software. We included 33 patients with uncomplicated and 29 with complicated MTBI, who were aged 16-65 years., Results: 12 months after MTBI, significant within-group volume reductions were detected in the left accumbens area and right caudate nucleus for both patients groups, but no significant differences between the groups were revealed. No associations between volumetric variables and post-concussive symptoms or global functioning were found. The left temporal thickness was significantly associated with executive functioning., Conclusion: Structural subcortical alterations occur after complicated and uncomplicated MTBIs but these findings were not associated with symptoms burden or functional outcomes. Nonetheless, worse executive functioning was found in patients with shrinkage of the left temporal lobe.

Introduction: The Mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms (mBIAS) scale was developed as a symptom validity test (SVT) for use with patients following mild traumatic brain injury. This study was the first to examine the clinical utility of the mBIAS in a mixed clinical sample presenting to a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) neuropsychology clinic., Method: Participants were 117 patients with mixed etiologies (85.5% male; age: M = 39.2 years, SD = 11.6) from a VA neuropsychology clinic. Participants were divided into pass/fail groups using two different SVT criteria, based on select validity scales from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): first, Infrequency Scale (F) scores: (a) MMPI-F-Fail (n = 21) and (b) MMPI-F-Pass (n = 96); and, second, Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) scores: (a) MMPI-FBS-Fail (n = 36) and (b) MMPI-FBS-Pass (n = 81)., Results: The mBIAS demonstrated good internal consistency, and each item contributed meaningfully to the total score. At a symptom exaggeration base rate of 35%, an mBIAS cutoff of ≥11 was optimal for screening symptom exaggeration when groups were classified using both F and FBS scales. This cutoff score resulted in very high specificity (.89 to .94); moderate-high positive predictive power (.71 to .75) and negative predictive power (.72 to .79); and low-moderate sensitivity (.31 to .57). At all base rates of probable somatic exaggeration, a cutoff of ≥16 resulted in perfect specificity and positive predictive power, but very low sensitivity., Conclusions: The mBIAS has potential for use in samples outside of mild traumatic brain injury. In settings where the symptom exaggeration base rate is 35%, a cutoff of ≥11 may be used as a "red flag" for further evaluation, but should not be relied on for clinical decision making. At all base rates of probable somatic exaggeration, psychologists with patients who score ≥16 can be confident that those patients were exaggerating. Importantly, however, this cutoff may fail to identify a large proportion of patients who are exaggerating.

The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical utility of three recently developed validity scales (Validity-10, NIM5, and LOW6) designed to screen for symptom exaggeration using the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI). Participants were 272 U.S. military service members who sustained a mild, moderate, severe, or penetrating traumatic brain injury (TBI) and who were evaluated by the neuropsychology service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center within 199 weeks post injury. Participants were divided into two groups based on the Negative Impression Management scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory: (a) those who failed symptom validity testing (SVT-fail; n = 27) and (b) those who passed symptom validity testing (SVT-pass; n = 245). Participants in the SVT-fail group had significantly higher scores (p<.001) on the Validity-10, NIM5, LOW6, NSI total, and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) clinical scales (range: d = 0.76 to 2.34). Similarly high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power (PPP), and negative predictive (NPP) values were found when using all three validity scales to differentiate SVT-fail versus SVT-pass groups. However, the Validity-10 scale consistently had the highest overall values. The optimal cutoff score for the Validity-10 scale to identify possible symptom exaggeration was ≥19 (sensitivity = .59, specificity = .89, PPP = .74, NPP = .80). For the majority of people, these findings provide support for the use of the Validity-10 scale as a screening tool for possible symptom exaggeration. When scores on the Validity-10 exceed the cutoff score, it is recommended that (a) researchers and clinicians do not interpret responses on the NSI, and (b) clinicians follow up with a more detailed evaluation, using well-validated symptom validity measures (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form, MMPI-2-RF, validity scales), to seek confirmatory evidence to support an hypothesis of symptom exaggeration.

Introduction: Validity of neuropsychological assessment depends, inter alia, on the cooperation of the examinee, requiring separate assessment. Stand-alone tests devised for detecting negative response bias (NRB) are exposed to potential threats to their validity. In this study, an algorithm was developed for assessing NRB within a standardized, computerized neuropsychological battery (NeuroTrax), making it difficult to detect and circumvent., Method: Data were collected from the archived medical records of 75 outpatients with mild to moderate head injury, all in litigation. Participants were classified as low or high likelihood for NRB, using a known test for effort assessment (Test of Memory Malingering)., Results: Variables judged to be prone for exaggeration and showing large differences between the groups were entered into a logistic regression analysis. The resulting formula exhibited high specificity (98.0%) and sensitivity (87.5%), classifying correctly 94% of the cases., Conclusion: It is suggested that the algorithm developed empirically using scores on the NeuroTrax computerized battery can be a useful tool for assessing effort. This algorithm should resist threats to its validity and can be automatically computed while assessing a range of cognitive skills.

Exposure to different toxic substances can have acute and chronic neurological and neuropsychiatric health effects on humans. Patients often report impaired concentration and memory, irritability, fatigue, instability of affect and difficulties in impulse control. The diagnostic process for neurotoxic diseases is complex and relies heavily on the exclusion of differential diagnosis and substantiating the cognitive complaints by neuropsychological assessment. Diagnostic evaluations have the purpose to help the patient by finding an explanation for the symptoms to guide treatment strategy or prevent further deterioration. But what if the diagnostic process in itself leads to problems that can be quite persistent and difficult to manage? The iatrogenic, or sick-making, side effects of the diagnostic process are the main focus of this case study., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Performance validity test (PVT) error rates using Monte Carlo simulation reported by Berthelson and colleagues (in False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests. Brain Injury, 27, 909-916, 2013) were compared with PVT and symptom validity test (SVT) failure rates in two nonmalingering clinical samples. At a per-test false-positive rate of 10%, Monte Carlo simulation overestimated error rates for: (i) failure of ≥2 out of 5 PVTs/SVT for Larrabee (in Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 410-425, 2003) and ACS (Pearson, Advanced clinical solutions for use with WAIS-IV and WMS-IV. San Antonio: Pearson Education, 2009) and (ii) failure of ≥2 out of 7 PVTs/SVT for Larrabee (Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 410-425, 2003; Malingering scales for the Continuous Recognition Memory Test and Continuous Visual Memory Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 167-180, 2009 combined). Monte Carlo overestimation is likely because PVT performances are atypical in pattern or degree for what occurs in actual neurologic, psychiatric, or developmental disorders. Consequently, PVT scores form skewed distributions with performance at ceiling and restricted range, rather than forming a standard normal distribution with mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.0. These results support the practice of using ≥2 PVT/SVT failures as representing probable invalid clinical presentation., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Although most individuals who suffer a mild traumatic brain injury have complete recovery, a number experience persistent symptoms that appear inconsistent with the severity of the injury. Symptoms may be ascribed to malingering, exaggeration or poor effort on cognitive testing. The purpose of this paper is to propose that previously unconsidered factors, informed by social psychology and behavioural economics, can appear as 'symptom magnification' or 'poor effort', which are incorrectly interpreted as the result of a conscious process. These are complex and multi-determined behaviours with a unique differential diagnosis which have important implications for research, evaluation and treatment.

Primary Objectives: To examine the clinical utility of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) with US Spanish speaking patients diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI)., Research Design: The demographic characteristics and neuropsychological functioning of Spanish speaking patients with TBI with valid vs suboptimal performance were compared., Methods and Procedures: Demographic and neuropsychological data were retrospectively collected from charts of patients who underwent neurocognitive evaluations for clinical, med-legal and workmen's compensation purposes. Slick et al. criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction were employed for clinical determination of the validity of participants' neuropsychological profiles, resulting in 16 valid and four suboptimal performers., Main Outcomes and Results: Valid performers obtained significantly greater scores than suboptimal performers on all trials of the TOMM and generally demonstrated less impairment across neuropsychological domains. The traditional cut-off score for the TOMM misclassified 18.8% of participants not suspected of malingering and lower levels of education appeared to reduce performance on this measure within the valid group., Conclusions: The current findings generally support the use of the TOMM with US primarily Spanish speaking patients diagnosed with TBI. However, caution is recommended when utilizing this measure with individuals having minimal levels of education. Future research with a larger sample and a non-neurological age- and education-matched sample should investigate lower cut-off scores for use with such patients.

The current study examined the prevalence of cognitive underperformance and symptom over-reporting in a mixed sample of psychiatric patients (N = 183). We employed the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test (ASTM) to measure cognitive underperformance and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to measure the tendency to over-report symptoms. We also administered neuropsychological tests (e.g., Concept Shifting Task; Rey's Verbal Learning Test) and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) to the patients. A total of 34% of them failed the ASTM, the SIMS or both tests. ASTM and SIMS scores were significantly, albeit modestly, correlated with each other (r = -.22). As to the links between underperformance, over-reporting, neuropsychological tasks, and the SCL-90, the association between over-reporting on the SIMS and SCL-90 scores was the most robust one. The subsample that only failed on the ASTM performed significantly worse on a compound index of memory performance. Our findings indicate that underperformance and over-reporting are loosely coupled dimensions and that particularly over-reporting is intimately linked to heightened SCL-90 scores.

The present study used criterion groups validation to determine the ability of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) modifier indices to detect malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients with TBI who met criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) were compared to those who showed no indications of malingering. Data were collected from 108 TBI patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Base rate (BR) scores were used for MCMI-III modifier indices: Disclosure, Desirability, and Debasement. Malingering classification was based on the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for MND. TBI patients were placed in one of three groups: MND (n = 55), not-MND (n = 26), or Indeterminate (n = 26).The not-MND group had lower modifier index scores than the MND group. At scores associated with a 4% false-positive (FP) error rate, sensitivity was 47% for Disclosure, 51% for Desirability, and 55% for Debasement. Examination of joint classification analysis demonstrated 54% sensitivity at cutoffs associated with 0% FP error rate. Results suggested that scores from all MCMI-III modifier indices are useful for identifying intentional symptom exaggeration in TBI. Debasement was the most sensitive of the three indices. Clinical implications are discussed.

Patients with physical signs and symptoms for which no adequate organic cause can be found may receive any one of a large range of diagnostic labels, including functional illness, functional overlay, hysteria, hysterical overlay, conversion reaction, psychophysiological reaction, somatization reaction, hypochondriasis, invalid reaction, neurasthenia, psychogenic reaction, psychosomatic illness, malingering, and Münchausen syndrome. In this chapter, we describe both common and uncommon "functional" ocular symptoms and signs, including visual loss in one or both eyes, constricted visual fields and other field defects, various types of ocular motor dysfunction, including disorders of ocular motility and alignment, disorders of pupillary size and reactivity, and abnormalities of eyelid position and function. We also discuss and illustrate the methods by which the nonorganic nature of these manifestations can be determined. In many cases simple techniques performed in the clinic are sufficient to establish a diagnosis of nonorganic ocular disease, whereas in other cases ancillary studies such as electrophysiological testing may be necessary. The chapter also describes the appropriate approach that the physician should take when dealing with a patient who has proven functional ocular signs and symptoms., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) is a 75-item, self-report measure to be used with individuals at least 18 years of age, which may be utilized to assess potential malingering of psychosis, neurologic impairment, amnesia, low intelligence, or affective disorder. However, no studies in the literature have examined the diagnostic validity of this instrument in a known-groups design involving medicolegal referrals diagnosed as malingering using the criteria outlined by Slick and colleagues [Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545-561]. The current known-groups, archival study was designed to examine the effectiveness of the SIMS at identifying malingering in patients involved in personal injury lawsuits or disability claims. Findings indicate that a higher cut score on the SIMS for identification of malingering may be appropriate for use with this population. Limitations, clinical implications, and suggestions for further research are discussed.

The rates of significantly below-chance results on three neuropsychological symptom validity tests (SVTs) including the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Word Memory Test (WMT) were compared in a private practice forensic sample of 1032 examinees with alleged mild traumatic brain injury, moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, alleged toxic exposure, and reported chronic pain. The PDRT and WMT were equivalent to one another in the rates of below-chance results, with both yielding more frequent below-chance results than the TOMM. Seemingly more difficult sections of the PDRT and WMT had higher yields than seemingly easier sections. Multiple SVTs were more likely to yield below-chance results than a single test, supporting the use of multiple SVTs in forensic neuropsychological evaluations.

This study evaluates the ability of several Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; Psychological Assessment Resources, 1990) variables to detect malingering in mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). The sample consisted of 373 TBI patients and 766 general clinical patients. Classification accuracy for seven indicators is reported across a range of injury severity and scores levels. Overall, most WCST scores were ineffective in discriminating malingering from non-malingering mild TBI patients. Failure-to-Maintain-Set, the Suhr & Boyer formula, and the King et al. formula detected about 30% of malingerers at cutoffs associated with a false positive error rate of < or =11%. The clinical interpretation and use of these indicators are discussed.

A known-groups design was used to determine the classification accuracy of verbal fluency variables in detecting Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Participants were 204 TBI and 488 general clinical patients. The Slick et al. (1999) criteria were used to classify the TBI patients into non-MND and MND groups. An educationally corrected FAS Total Correct word T-score proved to be the most accurate of the several verbal fluency indicators examined. Classification accuracy of this variable at specific cutoffs is presented in a cumulative frequency table. This variable accurately differentiated non-MND from MND mild TBI patients but its accuracy was unacceptable in moderate/severe TBI. The clinical application of these findings is discussed.

Malingering detection has become a topic of increased interest in the US over the last years. However, this development has not been matched in Europe. For example, in Spain there is insufficient evidence to support the use of reliable and valid malingering tests. In this study, we tested the applicability of two malingering detection tests (Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and Dot Counting Test) in a Spanish sample. The sample included three groups of patients (30 non-compensation seeking, 14 compensation seeking non-suspected of malingering, and 10 suspected of malingering) and a group of analog students (n=54). Tests' results were able to discriminate between the groups of malingerers (both patients and analogs) and non-malingerers (both compensation seeking and non-compensation seeking). However, the TOMM achieved a higher overall classification rate than the Dot Counting Test. Our results encourage the use of the TOMM as an indicator of malingering with Spanish population.

The classification accuracy of the Portland digit recognition test (PDRT) in detecting cognitive malingering was studied in patients claiming cognitive deficits due to exposure to environmental or industrial toxins. Twenty-nine patients alleging toxic exposure and who met Slick et al. [Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingering neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545-561] criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction were compared to 14 toxic exposure patients negative for evidence of malingering. The published cutoffs were associated with a false positive error rate of 0% and sensitivity of more than 50%. When criterion for a PDRT failure was a positive PDRT finding on more than one section, the FP rate remained 0% while sensitivity improved to about 70%. The results indicate that a failed PDRT is an indication of malingering and not the neurological effect of a toxic substance or some other clinical phenomenon. The PDRT can be used with confidence as an indicator of negative response bias in cases of alleged exposure to neurotoxic substances.

A known-groups design was used to determine the classification accuracy of 12 Booklet Category Test variables in the detection of malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Participants were 206 TBI and 60 general clinical patients seen for neuropsychological evaluation. Slick, Sherman, and Iverson's (1999) criteria were used to classify the TBI patients into non-malingering, suspect, and MND groups. Classification accuracy of the BCT depended on the specific variable and injury severity examined, with some scores detecting more than 40% of malingerers with false positive error rates of 10% or less. However, the BCT variables are often influenced by cognitive ability as well as malingering, so caution is indicated in applying the BCT to the diagnosis of malingering. Application of these data in clinical practice is discussed.

This article reports six cases of litigants claiming neuropsychiatric impairment due to toxic mold exposure. In spite of recent growth in personal injury claims due to mold, numerous reviews of the literature have failed to find an association between environmental exposure to mold and neuropsychiatric and/or neuropsychological damage. We report data on six patients claiming harm, 4 of whom revealed a long history of somatization by history and psychological testing, and 2 of whom were shown to be malingering based on multiple indicators of non-credible performance. Of the 6 patients, only the 2 somatoform patients who were also depressed showed credible evidence of neuropsychological dysfunction. We review two other studies that have examined the link between mold exposure and cognitive impairment and discuss their limitations in view of the presenting behaviors of these 6 patients. Until the literature has established a credible link between mold and neuropsychiatric/neuropsychological impairment, jurists and clinicians must consider the ethics and potential harm of exposing somatoform patients to multiple unwarranted medical evaluations. Principles for forensic evaluations in this special population are reviewed.

Objective: Directly estimate the prevalence of cognitive malingering in persons claiming exposure to occupational and environmental substances., Methods: Retrospective review of 128 neuropsychological cases with financial incentive. Estimates were based on two methods: (1) clinical identification using the Slick, Sherman and Iverson criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND), and (2) statistical modeling based on patient performance on several individual psychometric indicators of malingering., Results: The prevalence based on the clinical method was 40%. The statistically based estimates ranged from 30% to more than 45% depending on model parameters. Different incentive parameters may influence prevalence., Conclusions: Cognitive malingering in toxic exposure is common and must be adequately addressed in the clinical neuropsychological assessment of toxic exposure and in research on its neurocognitive effects or findings will likely over-estimate the degree of cognitive impairment and related disability.

Information is lacking regarding the prevalence of fraudulent psychiatric and cognitive symptoms in the "stress" claim workers' compensation population. Using various validity indices (Negative Impression Scale, the Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function) of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), between 9 and 29% of 233 workers' compensation "stress" claim litigants were identified as exhibiting noncredible psychiatric symptoms. In addition, 15% of the subjects were determined to have noncredible cognitive symptoms on the Dot Counting Test, although only 8% displayed suspect effort on the 15-Item Memorization Test, with 5% of subjects failing both cognitive effort tests. The percentage of positive identifications on both a PAI and cognitive credibility index ranged from only 2 to 4%. Further, correlations between PAI validity indices and cognitive effort scales were nonexistent to modest, indicating that the psychiatric and cognitive credibility indices are measuring different aspects of noncredible symptom production. It was predicted that the PAI profiles of the participants displaying suspect cognitive symptoms would be elevated on the Somatic Concerns, Antisocial, and/or Borderline scales; however, elevations (relative to subjects with credible cognitive performance) were instead noted on the Somatic Concerns, Depression, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, and Schizophrenia scales.

This study used a known-groups design to determine the classification accuracy of the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996, 1997) in detecting cognitive malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Forty-one of 161 TBI patients met Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction. Twenty-two no-incentive memory disorder patients were also included. The original cutoffs (<45) for Trial 2 and Retention demonstrated excellent specificity (less than a 5% false positive error rate) and impressive sensitivity (greater than 45%). However, these cutoffs are actually conservative in the context of mild TBI. Over 90% of the non-MND mild TBI sample scored 48 or higher on the Retention Trial and none scored less than 46 while 60% of the MND patients claiming mild TBI were detected at those levels. Trial 1 also demonstrated excellent classification accuracy. Application of these data to clinical practice is discussed.

The present study used a known-groups design to determine the classification accuracy of 10 MMPI-2 validity scales and indicators in the detection of cognitive malingering in traumatic brain injury. Participants were 259 traumatic brain injury and 133 general clinical patients seen for neuropsychological evaluation. The TBI patients were subdivided into groups based on a comprehensive examination of effort following Slick, Sherman, and Iverson's (1999) criteria. More extreme scores demonstrated excellent specificity; often impressive sensitivity was seen even while maintaining a low false positive error rate. Specificity was good even in stroke, memory disorder, and psychiatric patients without incentive. The results of this study are presented in frequency tables that can be easily referenced in clinical practice.

The purpose of the current study was to replicate the clinical validation study of the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 19961997). Fifty cases were selected from two different participant pools: medically documented traumatic brain-injury patients and compensation-seeking, mild head trauma cases. Results replicated and expanded those found by Tombaugh and indicated that employing a Trial 2 cutting score of greater than 5 errors provided adequate sensitivity to suboptimal effort while demonstrating remarkable insensitivity to cognitively impaired traumatic brain-injury cases. Use of a lower cutting score (e.g., 2 to 5 errors) is also discussed.

This study used a known-groups design to examine the classification accuracy of the Test of Memory Malingering in detecting cognitive malingering in patients claiming cognitive deficits due to exposure to environmental and industrial toxins. Thirty-three patients who met Slick et al. criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction were compared to 17 toxic exposure patients negative for evidence of malingering, 14 TBI patients and 22 memory disorder patients, both groups without incentive. The original cutoffs (<45) for Trial 2 and Retention demonstrated perfect specificity (0% false positive error rate) and impressive sensitivity (>50%). These findings indicate the TOMM can be used with confidence as an indicator of negative response bias in cases of cognitive deficits attributed to exposure to alleged neurotoxic substances.

Six cases of factitious disease and malingering in pediatric patients referred to an infectious diseases practice in a tertiary care children's hospital are described, and implications for general clinical practice are reviewed. All patients were girls aged 9-15 years. Two patients were malingering with the secondary gain of avoiding attendance at school. The other 4 patients presented with factitious illness without clear link to secondary gain, but rather for a psychological purpose. Three of the subjects admitted to self-induced or feigned illness. The 2 patients diagnosed with malingering did very well with early parental support, psychotherapy, and attention paid to school difficulties. The outcomes of the others with underlying psychological conflicts were less resolved. Factitious disorders and malingering occur in the pediatric population. A high index of suspicion is needed for prompt diagnosis and care.

There has been disagreement in the literature about whether persons with documented neuropathology can be diagnosed as malingering. To address this question, we present three moderate severe traumatic brain injury patients who were evaluated in the context of litigation who met the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for a diagnosis of "Definite Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction." Each performed significantly below-chance on at least one forced-choice symptom validity test, thereby demonstrating a deliberate attempt to appear impaired. These cases represent the first definitive evidence of an intentional effort to appear impaired in the context of documented moderate/severe traumatic brain injury.

Despite differences in the constructs measured, the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS) remain an alternative to the Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS) as a broad-band instrument for assessing multiple aspects of attention and memory. Although a number of studies have examined indices of the WMS as indicators of malingering, few studies have similarly investigated the MAS. In this study, we examined the degree to which the MAS was effective in detecting incomplete effort in a clinical sample of patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation after mild head injury. Included in the sample were 21 financially compensable (FC) participants with alleged mild head injury and 21 participants who were not involved in litigation and suffered more serious head injuries. Examination of the four MAS domain indices indicated that Short-Term Memory was most useful at identifying incomplete effort. We also examined subscales of the MAS. Consistent with previous findings, brief tests such as Verbal and Visual Span had high rates of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Although tests based on a forced-choice recognition paradigm (e.g., Immediate and Delayed Visual Recognition) predicted group membership above chance levels, they failed to significantly add to prediction above Verbal and Visual Span subtests.

Neuropsychological testing was completed in a patient who showed cognitive decline of mental functions, unusual answers to questions, and other characteristics of what has typically been described in the literature as the "Ganser Syndrome." Clear evidence of malingering on a memory test seemed to confirm that this patient was exaggerating deficits for psychiatric reasons or secondary gain, yet the patient showed evidence of mild organic impairment on MRI and continued to deteriorate in cognitive functions and basic self-care. Although an initial SPECT scan had suggested a pattern inconsistent with dementia, a second scan showed frontal-temporal perfusion deficits. Based on this scan and the clinical picture of progressive deterioration, a diagnosis of frontal-temporal lobe dementia was made. This case illustrates that the seemingly deliberate selection of incorrect responses may occur in the early stages of an organic dementia, and that a diagnosis of frontal-temporal lobe dementia should be considered in cases where symptoms appear to be psychiatric or nonorganic. The case further raises the question of whether the reported symptoms of Ganser Syndrome may be accounted for by frontal-temporal lobe dysfunction, since there appears to be some overlap between symptoms of Ganser Syndrome and frontal-temporal lobe dementia. It is also important to note that many reported cases of Ganser Syndrome had a history of head injury.

The current study evaluated the utility of the WMS-III Faces I subtest (Faces) for the assessment of malingering. Thirty nonlitigating traumatic brain injury patients and 30 control participants were administered Faces under standard administration and instructed malingering conditions. Although the two groups obtained similar scores when taking the test under standard instructions, both groups produced significantly lower performances when instructed to malinger, indicating that Faces is sensitive to malingering, but less sensitive to traumatic brain injury. The total raw score provided stronger classification accuracy than an empirically weighted combination of the five easiest items (i.e., floor effect items). A raw score cutoff of 31 yielded the maximum classification accuracy with 93.3% sensitivity and 80.0% specificity.

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most commonly administered tests in neuropsychological assessments. It has been shown to be a valid indicator of brain damage due to traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as a number of other neuropathological conditions. TMT error and ratio scores have been suggested as possible markers of malingering. The present study examined the utility of various TMT scores as malingering measures in 94 TBI litigants. Litigants were divided into those suspected of (n = 27) and those not suspected of malingering (n = 67) based on scores obtained on the Test of Memory Malingering and/or the Rey 15-Item Test. TMT errors did not discriminate between suspected and nonsuspected malingerers; however, the overall level of performance on the TMT was suppressed in suspected malingerers. The TMT ratio score was significantly lower in litigants suspected of malingering, although the clinical utility of this ratio is minimal. Results of the present study suggest using caution when interpreting TMT scores as markers of malingering in TBI litigants.

Have you ever become frustrated while caring for patients who present with a confusing array of musculoskeletal complaints and other signs of illness? When routine evaluation does not suggest a diagnosis and you begin to suspect it's "all in their head," how do you identify the underlying cause? And what is the best tack to take when dealing with such patients? Thanks to research by Waddell and colleagues, there is a way to distinguish between physical and behavioral causes. Drs Kiester and Duke explain the eight Waddell signs for identifying nonorganic back pain and offer a practical approach to patient management.

Explanatory models of malingering strive to understand the primary motivation underlying attempts to feign. Rogers, Sewell, and Goldstein (1994) provided empirical support for the conceptualization of pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational models. In the current study, a prototypical analysis of 221 forensic experts results in a slightly refined formulation: the adaptational models was decomposed into its two broad dimensions (cost-benefit analysis and adversarial setting). An important findings is that the factor structure for the explanatory models remained stable when applied to both forensic and nonforensic cases. As a first investigation, significant differences were observed in prototypical cases of malingering by the category of referral (forensic or nonforensic) and by type of feigning (mental disorders, cognitive impairment, and medical syndromes). Surprisingly, the feigning of medical syndromes appeared to play a relatively prominent role in both forensic and nonforensic cases and to be influenced by the apparent adversarial context of the assessment. Finally, important gender differences were observed, especially with nonforensic prototypical cases of malingering.

Objectives: The validity of memory and concentration complaints that are often reported after a whiplash trauma is controversial. The prevalence of malingering or underperformance in post-whiplash patients, and its impact on their cognitive test results were studied., Methods: The Amsterdam short term memory (ASTM) test, a recently developed malingering test, was used as well as a series of conventional memory and concentration tests. The study sample was a highly selected group of patients, who were examined either as part of a litigation procedure (n=36) or in the normal routine of an outpatient clinic (n=72)., Results: The prevalence of underperformance, as defined by a positive score on the malingering test, was 61% (95% CI: 45-77) in the context of litigation, and 29% (95% CI: 18-40) in the outpatient clinic (p=0.003). Furthermore, the scores on the memory and concentration test of malingering post-whiplash patients (n=43) and non-malingering post-whiplash patients (n=65) were compared with the scores of patients with closed head injury (n=20) and normal controls (n=46). The malingering post-whiplash patients scored as low as the patients with closed head injury on most tests., Conclusions: The prevalence of malingering or cognitive underperformance in late post-whiplash patients is substantial, particularly in litigation contexts. It is not warranted to explain the mild cognitive disorders of whiplash patients in terms of brain damage, as some authors have done. The cognitive complaints of non-malingering post-whiplash patients are more likely a result of chronic pain, chronic fatigue, or depression.

Data are submitted on patients with vibration disease, showing a disposition to malingering in this particular patient population, which fact necessitates its recognition in settling questions related to expert evaluation of the work fitness. Recommendations are offered on approaches to avoiding expert errors.

The author studied absenteeism rates of the nursing personnel in five hospitals, two publics and three privates, all with more than a hundred beds, in the city of Belo Horizonte. In addition she studied the relationship between sickness and injustified absences.

In diagnosis of functional somatic disorders, it is important to remember that the patient has no control over symptoms in somatization disorder, conversion disorder, psychogenic pain, and hypochondriasis. In addition, the environmental goals are recognizable only with careful history taking. Although voluntary symptom production is involved in both factitious disorder and malingering, environmental goals in the latter disorder are much more obvious. Depression can be an accompanying feature of all of these disorders; however, it is most closely linked with psychogenic pain. Atypical or masked depression should be included in differential diagnosis in elderly patients with somatic complaints. Referral to a consultation-liaison psychiatrist can help in evaluation and diagnosis of a somatic disorder. Joint consultation is the most effective way to plan treatment for this difficult group of patients.

Reviewing the present-day Soviet and foreign literature and analyzing their own findings, the authors discuss clinical and taxonomic aspects of pathomimesis and give their recommendations on classification.

Patient and parent response to the presence or supposed presence of eye disease is a major factor in handling pediatric ophthalmology patients. The response may vary from passive acceptance of a blinding disease to hysteria, neurosis, or even psychosis. A literature review has shown that there is wide variation of understanding by the practitioner of the importance of this phase of ophthalmic practice. The author has drawn on three decades of ophthalmic practice. When blindness, for example, is threatened, our "normal" responses change, and what we judge as normal should also. Ways of evaluating and treating patient or parent responses are suggested, along with guidelines for using consultants and others. This may play a role in malpractice suits.

Hysteria and malingering, both commonly seen, especially in orthopaedic clinics, are reveiwed. Advances in psychology and psychiatry are often unknown or ignored by surgeons, who may thus mistreat or misdiagnose a multitude of conditions.