Evaluating malingering in cognitive and memory examinations: a guide for clinicians

A case report and literature review of cognitive malingering and psychopathology

Malingering of cognitive difficulties constitutes a major issue in psychiatric forensic settings. Here, we present a selective literature review related to the topic of cognitive malingering, psychopathology and their possible connections. Furthermore, we report a single case study of a 60-year-old man with a long and ongoing judicial history who exhibits a suspicious multi-domain neurocognitive disorder with significant reduction of autonomy in daily living, alongside a longtime history of depressive symptoms. Building on this, we suggest the importance of evaluating malingering conditions through both psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment tools. More specifically, the use of Performance Validity Tests (PVTs)-commonly but not quite correctly considered as tests of "malingering"-alongside the collection of clinical history and the use of routine psychometric testing, seems to be crucial in order to detect discrepancies between self-reported patient's symptoms, embedded validity indicators and psychometric results.

Memory: what we think the psychiatrist should know in a forensic context

This article offers a selective review of memory and of issues relevant for a psychiatrist thinking about memory in a forensic context. It considers the development of our knowledge of memory, some of the ways in which memory can be erroneous and some evidence that this fallibility may sometimes be overstated. It concludes with a section on good practice in psychiatric assessment and in medico-legal work, looking at memory assessment, malingering/exaggeration and guidance for expert witnesses.

Confessions of a liar-detector: I can tell if you're malingering, but I can't tell why

Malingering is the intentional feigning of illness for external gain. The author has written several papers on the epidemiology, assessment, testing and reporting of this. However, practice in this field can raise considerable challenges, not least the inability to determine motivation for lying, and potential damage from ‘false positives’, where individuals fabricate some aspects of their testimony, yet still have underlying psychiatric problems. This brief article lays out the author's reflections on this complex area.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

Malingering mental disorders: Clinical assessment

Malingering is the dishonest and intentional production of symptoms. It can cause considerable difficulty as assessment runs counter to normal practice, and it may expose clinicians to testing medicolegal situations. In this first part of a two-article review, we explore types of psychiatric malingering and their occurrence across a range of common and challenging scenarios, discussing presentations that may help delineate true from feigned illness. A framework is provided for undertaking an assessment where malingering is suspected, including recommendations on clinician approach, the use of collateral information, and self-evaluation of biases. The uses, and limitations, of psychometric tests are discussed, including ‘general’, malingering-specific and ‘symptom validity’ scales.

Learning Objectives

• Understand the challenges of determining ‘real’ from ‘malingered’ symptomatology across a range of psychiatric conditions

• Have a rational strategy for approaching a clinical assessment where malingering is suspected

• Appreciate the role and limitations of various psychometric tests that can be used in such assessments

Malingering mental disorders: Medicolegal reporting

In this second part of a two-article review on malingering we consider the challenges of presenting clinical and psychometric findings. Numerous clinical and demographic factors are statistically associated with malingering but applying them to an individual case risks challenges to the expert psychiatric witness's evidence. Although psychometric data can usefully help strengthen or challenge a diagnosis, expert witnesses must recognise and report the limitations of these tests. We recommend that psychiatric expert witnesses do not try to look for or to link any external incentives with clinical findings, and indeed we suggest that they should, other than exceptionally, avoid using the term ‘malingering’. It is the job of the court, not the expert witness, to ascertain an individual's credibility and motives. We suggest a framework for presenting expert psychiatric evidence in this area.

Learning Objectives

• Appreciate clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with malingering, and the challenges to applying these in individual cases

• Understand the legal scrutiny to which the reporting of psychometric data might be exposed

• Appreciate the roles of the expert witness and the court, and have a suitable framework for reporting expert psychiatric evidence in such cases

Factitious disorders and malingering in relation to functional neurologic disorders

Interest in malingering has grown in recent years, and is reflected in the exponential increase in academic publications since 1990. Although malingering is more commonly detected in medicolegal practice, it is not an all-or-nothing presentation and moreover can vary in the extent of presentation. As a nonmedical disorder, the challenge for clinical practice remains that malingering by definition is intentional and deliberate. As such, clinical skills alone are often insufficient to detect it and we describe psychometric tests such as symptom validity tests and relevant nonmedical investigations. Finally, we describe those areas of neurologic practice where symptom exaggeration and deception are more likely to occur, e.g., postconcussional syndrome, psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, motor weakness and movement disorders, and chronic pain. Factitious disorders are rare in clinical practice and their detection depends largely on the level of clinical suspicion supported by the systematic collection of relevant information from a variety of sources. In this chapter we challenge the accepted DSM-5 definition of factitious disorder and suggest that the traditional glossaries have neglected the extent to which a person's reported symptoms can be considered a product of intentional choice or selective psychopathology largely beyond the subject's voluntary control, or more likely, both. We present evidence to suggest that neurologists preferentially diagnose factitious presentations in healthcare workers as "hysterical," possibly to avoid the stigma of simulated illness.