Form vs Function, fighting the last war: a reflection on the exchange between Larrabee, Bianchini, Boone, and Rohling (2017) and Nichols (2017) over Nichols and Gass (2015). The Fake Bad Scale (FBS): malingering or ligation response syndrome – Which is it?

Replication and cross-validation of the personality assessment inventory (PAI) cognitive bias scale (CBS) in a mixed clinical sample

Objective: This study is a cross-validation of the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), a ten-item scale designed to assess symptom endorsement associated with performance validity test failure in neuropsychological samples. The study utilized a mixed neuropsychological sample of consecutively referred patients at a large academic medical center in the Midwest. Participants and Methods: Participants were 332 patients who completed embedded and free-standing performance validity tests (PVTs) and the PAI. Pass and fail groups were created based on PVT performance to evaluate classification accuracy of the CBS. Results: The results were generally consistent with the initial study for overall classification accuracy, sensitivity, and cut-off score. Consistent with the validation study, CBS had better classification accuracy than the original PAI validity scales and a comparable effect size to that obtained in the original validation publication; however, the Somatic Complaints scale (SOM) and the Conversion subscale (SOM-C) also demonstrated good classification accuracy. The CBS had incremental predictive ability compared to existing PAI scales. Conclusions: The results supported the CBS, but further research is needed on specific populations. Findings from this present study also suggest the relationship between conversion tendencies and PVT failure may be stronger in some geographic locations or population types (forensic versus clinical patients).

You'd Better Believe It: The Conceptual and Practical Challenges of Assessing Malingering in Patients With Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is a prevalent and costly condition, with many patients receiving income support and funded treatment. Given that pain cannot be assessed objectively, patients may be suspected of exaggerating their pain and disability to receive additional funding. Although numerous methods of detecting malingering have been suggested, it is unclear whether clinicians can reliably identify malingering in patients with chronic pain. The present focus article was developed to assess the theoretical basis and empirical support for proposed methods of detecting malingering in patients with chronic pain. Five approaches were identified: the evaluation of behavioral signs, effort testing, pen and paper measures, symptom validity tests, and combined methods. An examination of the literature revealed that proposed assessment tools have little theoretical basis or empirical support in patients with chronic pain. Additionally, assessment tools are inconsistent with advances in pain science and scores or observations are likely to be influenced by the typical features of chronic pain, including fear-avoidance and central sensitization. Clinicians should be aware that as yet neither subjective clinical opinions nor clinical detection methods can reliably identify malingering in patients with chronic pain. Perspective: There is interest in the development of assessment tools to detect malingering in patients with chronic pain. An evaluation of methods reveals theoretical and empirical limitations that undermine the usefulness of these approaches. As yet, there is no reliable way for clinicians to identify malingering in patients with chronic pain.