Development of the MMPI-2 cognitive complaints scale as an embedded measure of symptom validity

Validation of the personality assessment inventory (PAI) cognitive bias (CBS) and cognitive bias scale of scales (CB-SOS) in a post-deployment veteran sample

Objective: The present study evaluated the function of four cognitive, symptom validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) 1, 2, and 3 in a sample of Veterans who volunteered for a study of neurocognitive functioning. Method: 371 Veterans (88.1% male, 66.1% White) completed a battery including the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), the Word Memory Test (WMT), and the PAI. Independent samples t-tests compared mean differences on cognitive bias scales between valid and invalid groups on the M-FAST and WMT. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and hit rate across various scale point-estimates were used to evaluate classification accuracy of the CBS and CB-SOS scales. Results: Group differences were significant with moderate effect sizes for all cognitive bias scales between the WMT-classified groups (d = .52-.55), and large effect sizes between the M-FAST-classified groups (d = 1.27-1.45). AUC effect sizes were moderate across the WMT-classified groups (.650-.676) and large across M-FAST-classified groups (.816-.854). When specificity was set to .90, sensitivity was higher for M-FAST and the CBS performed the best (sensitivity = .42). Conclusion: The CBS and CB-SOS scales seem to better detect symptom invalidity than performance invalidity in Veterans using cutoff scores similar to those found in prior studies with non-Veterans.

The detection of malingering in whiplash-related injuries: a targeted literature review of the available strategies

OBJECTIVE

The present review is intended to provide an up-to-date overview of the strategies available to detect malingered symptoms following whiplash. Whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) represent the most common traffic injuries, having a major impact on economic and healthcare systems worldwide. Heterogeneous symptoms that may arise following whiplash injuries are difficult to objectify and are normally determined based on self-reported complaints. These elements, together with the litigation context, make fraudulent claims particularly likely. Crucially, at present, there is no clear evidence of the instruments available to detect malingered WADs.

METHODS

We conducted a targeted literature review of the methodologies adopted to detect malingered WADs. Relevant studies were identified via Medline (PubMed) and Scopus databases published up to September 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-two methodologies are included in the review, grouped into biomechanical techniques, clinical tools applied to forensic settings, and cognitive-based lie detection techniques. Strengths and weaknesses of each methodology are presented, and future directions are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the variety of techniques that have been developed to identify malingering in forensic contexts, the present work highlights the current lack of rigorous methodologies for the assessment of WADs that take into account both the heterogeneous nature of the syndrome and the possibility of malingering. We conclude that it is pivotal to promote awareness about the presence of malingering in whiplash cases and highlight the need for novel, high-quality research in this field, with the potential to contribute to the development of standardised procedures for the evaluation of WADs and the detection of malingering.

Multidimensional Malingering Criteria for Neuropsychological Assessment: A 20-Year Update of the Malingered Neuropsychological Dysfunction Criteria

OBJECTIVES

Empirically informed neuropsychological opinion is critical for determining whether cognitive deficits and symptoms are legitimate, particularly in settings where there are significant external incentives for successful malingering. The Slick, Sherman, and Iversion (1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) are considered a major milestone in the field's operationalization of neurocognitive malingering and have strongly influenced the development of malingering detection methods, including serving as the criterion of malingering in the validation of several performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) (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(4), 545-561). However, the MND criteria are long overdue for revision to address advances in malingering research and to address limitations identified by experts in the field.

METHOD

The MND criteria were critically reviewed, updated with reference to research on malingering, and expanded to address other forms of malingering pertinent to neuropsychological evaluation such as exaggeration of self-reported somatic and psychiatric symptoms.

RESULTS

The new proposed criteria simplify diagnostic categories, expand and clarify external incentives, more clearly define the role of compelling inconsistencies, address issues concerning PVTs and SVTs (i.e., number administered, false positives, and redundancy), better define the role of SVTs and of marked discrepancies indicative of malingering, and most importantly, clearly define exclusionary criteria based on the last two decades of research on malingering in neuropsychology. Lastly, the new criteria provide specifiers to better describe clinical presentations for use in neuropsychological assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed multidimensional malingering criteria that define cognitive, somatic, and psychiatric malingering for use in neuropsychological assessment are presented.

PTSD in Court III: Malingering, assessment, and the law

This journal's third article on PTSD in Court focuses especially on the topic's "court" component. It first considers the topic of malingering, including in terms of its definition, certainties, and uncertainties. As with other areas of the study of psychological injury and law, generally, and PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), specifically, malingering is a contentious area not only definitionally but also empirically, in terms of establishing its base rate in the index populations assessed in the field. Both current research and re-analysis of past research indicates that the malingering prevalence rate at issue is more like 15±15% as opposed to 40±10%. As for psychological tests used to assess PTSD, some of the better ones include the TSI-2 (Trauma Symptom Inventory, Second Edition; Briere, 2011), the MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition, Restructured Form; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011), and the CAPS-5 (The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; Weathers, Blake, Schnurr, Kaloupek, Marx, & Keane, 2013b). Assessors need to know their own possible biases, the applicable laws (e.g., the Daubert trilogy), and how to write court-admissible reports. Overall conclusions reflect a moderate approach that navigates the territory between the extreme plaintiff or defense allegiances one frequently encounters in this area of forensic practice.