Psychological Injury and Law

Publications in this journal

• Article: Introduction to Special Issue

  Paul M. Richards, Ronald M. Ruff
  Psychological Injury and Law 05/2012; 3(1):1-2.
• Article: Military Service Records: Searching for the Truth

  Robert G. Moering
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: In conducting Compensation and Pension (C&P) examinations, one of the most significant sources of evidence supporting a veteran’s claim for service connection are found in the veteran’s service medical records and service personnel records. Although specific numbers are unknown, a majority of mental health providers who conduct C&P examinations are not veterans and have limited knowledge and understanding of the records they are being asked to review. In cases of an initial posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) examination, the Federal Register requires C&P examiners to determine if the veteran’s claim is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service. This article reviews specific data within personnel records to help verify those elements. Additionally, perhaps one of the most difficult types of evaluations faced by any C&P examiner is a PTSD claim for personal assault (e.g., military sexual trauma). This article reviews the types of information within the records to help identify specific “Markers” associated with personal trauma. KeywordsPTSD–Disability examinations–Forensic psychology–Third party information–Military psychology–Military records
  Psychological Injury and Law 05/2012; 4(3):217-234.
• Article: Erratum to: Inaccuracies About the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale in the Reply by Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, and Kaufmann (2009)

  Carolyn L. Williams, James N. Butcher, Carlton S. Gass, Edward Cumella, Zina Kally
  Psychological Injury and Law 05/2012; 3(1):87-87.
• Article: The PTSD Stressor Criterion as a Barrier to Malingering: DSM-5 Draft Commentaries

  Michael B. First
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: This commentary focuses on the proposed changes to the trauma stressor criterion for PTSD for DSM-5, specifically its likely impact on malingering. PTSD is particularly susceptible to malingering because the diagnosis relies so heavily on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Because the traumatic event that is the trigger of the PTSD syndrome is generally based on objective fact and thus often easily corroborated, this element of the diagnosis is usually more challenging to malinger than subjective reports of symptoms. Therefore, one of the main gateways for limiting the misuse of the PTSD diagnosis in forensic settings is the criterion defining the range of qualifying traumas. Proposed changes to criterion A of PTSD in the draft include modifying the types of qualifying trauma by replacing “threat to physical integrity” with “sexual violation,” and clarifying the modes of exposure by replacing the phrase “confronted with” with two criterion: “learning that the event occurred to a close relative or close friend” and “experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.” Each of these changes has the potential to significantly broaden the range of qualifying stressors and consequently expand the potential pool of individuals who might be in a position to malinger the disorder. Given the likelihood that the DSM-5 field trials will be unable to provide information relevant to assessing the impact of making these changes in forensic settings, it would be prudent to resist the inclination to tinker with the wording unless other mechanisms are available to ensure that the wording changes do more good than harm. KeywordsPTSD-Malingering-DSM-5
  Psychological Injury and Law 05/2012; 3(4):255-259.
• Article: Erratum to: The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) is an Empirically-Validated Measure of Over-reporting in Personal Injury Litigants and Claimants: reply to Williams et al. (2009)

  Yossef S. Ben-Porath, Kevin W. Greve, Kevin J. Bianchini, Paul M. Kaufmann
  Psychological Injury and Law 05/2012; 3(1):86-86.
• Article: Clarification or Confusion? A Review of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson’s A Critical Analysis of the MND Criteria for Feigned Cognitive Impairment: Implications for Forensic Practice and Research

  Kyle B. Boone
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Rogers, Bender, and Johnson (in press) purport to identify the limitations of the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (Clin Neuropsychol, 13:545–561, 1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) by claiming that the diagnostic algorithm has not been adequately tested and overestimates the presence of malingered cognitive symptoms. The criticisms leveled at various MND criteria include concerns regarding the appropriateness of including external incentives in the model, claims that variability in cognitive symptom validity test hit rates compromises their use, and assertions that discrepancies between self-report and medical/psychosocial records are widespread in credible patients, and the authors ultimately argue that the MND criteria do not meet the Daubert standards. In this commentary in response to the Rogers et al. manuscript, the merits of the claimed criticisms are carefully evaluated, with the conclusion that the authors have overstated the failings of the MND criteria, which remain an accurate method for identifying noncredible patients in research and clinical settings. KeywordsFeigned cognitive impairment–Malingered neurocognitive dysfunction–MND–Slick, Sherman, and Iverson–Forensic practice
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(2):157-162.
• Article: A Critical Analysis of the MND Criteria for Feigned Cognitive Impairment: Implications for Forensic Practice and Research

  Richard Rogers, Scott D. Bender, Stephanie F. Johnson
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Forensic neuropsychology continues to grapple with critical determinations of response styles, including the assessment of malingering. The development of the Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) model has been highly influential for both feigning research and neuropsychological practice. In striving to be a comprehensive model of malingering, MND proposes complex criteria for ascertaining possible, probable, and definite levels. In its critical review, this article suggests the possibility of an MND bias towards the over-classification of malingering. It also examines the limits of MND research to adequately test the MND model. The conceptual and empirical limitations of MND are discussed with reference to theory and neuropsychological practice. KeywordsMalingered neurocognitive dysfunction–Malingering–Feigned cognitive impairment–Slick criteria–Daubert standard
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(2):147-156.
• Article: New PIL Sections: Aims and Scope

  Gerald Young
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The journal Psychological Injury and Law has added three new sections, increasing the reach of the journal. The three new sections are: Malingering and Symptom Validity Testing, Practice Matters, and State/ Provincial/ International Affairs. The editorial describes the aims and scope of each new section. KeywordsJournal sections-Aims and scope
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 2(3):276-277.
• Article: Gerald Young, Andrew W. Kane, Keith Nicholson, Causality of Psychological Injury: Presenting Evidence in Court. Review: Causality in Psychology and Law

  Eric G. Mart
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 1(3):210-211.
• Article: The DSM-5 Draft: Critique and Recommendations

  Gerald Young
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The series of articles in this special topic on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) draft (American Psychiatric Association 2010), which is preparatory to publication of the DSM-5, deals with issues and disorders and conditions pertinent to the field of psychological injury and law. The articles describe and critique the changes anticipated for the diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder, pain disorder, and neurocognitive disorder, in particular. Further, changes suggested in the draft for personality disorder are analyzed with a critical eye. In addition, the articles examine the lack of change for dealing with malingering and the general lack of consideration of group differences such as for race, in areas pertinent to psychological injury and law. This summary of the articles concludes that some of the changes in the DSM-5 draft are premature, and it calls for continued research and evidence-informed bases for recommended changes for the DSM-V. KeywordsDSM 5-Critique-Recommendations
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 3(4):320-322.
• Article: Psychology Journals: Proposal for Financial Disclosure Policies

  Gerald Young
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: All psychology journals should require that authors and reviewers abide by the policy of complete disclosure of conflicts of interest. The scientific and medical research publishing communities have been shaken by cases of lack of appropriate disclosure, leading to the development of editorial disclosure policies. The American Psychological Association requires full disclosure by authors who submit manuscripts to its journals. Medical journals have elaborate policies related to financial disclosure. In the area of forensics, it is especially important to have clear financial disclosure policies. With this editorial, the journal is spearheading efforts to encourage psychological and psychiatric journals with a forensic focus to adopt uniform, comprehensive, strict financial disclosure policies. Other psychology journals should consider the issues, as well. Recommendations concerning specific financial disclosure policies that journals could adopt are offered.
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 2(2):143-148.
• Article: Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial on the Young and the Tested

  Gerald Young
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: In this editorial about our dynamic new journal and association, I describe how young professionals and students in both the mental health field and the legal profession can play a role in the association and how they can benefit from it and the journal. The association and journal are meant to serve the education and career aspirations of young people and, at the same time, we look forward to their contributions.
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 1(2):75-77.
• Article: Neuropsychological and Psychological Aspects of Malingered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

  George J. Demakis, Jon D. Elhai
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that is frequently encountered in litigation, and as such, there is an increased risk for poor effort on cognitive tests, symptom exaggeration, or frank malingering. These are particularly problematic for accurate diagnosis. This article is divided into four sections. First, we address why individuals malinger PTSD as well as the challenges in detecting an invalid PTSD symptom presentation. Second, we discuss issues of cognitive functioning in PTSD and then the prevalence of and common patterns of poor effort on neuropsychological testing among individuals feigning PTSD. Third, we discuss psychological functioning in PTSD and then the prevalence and patterns of functioning on psychological measures of malingering in this population. Finally, recommendations for detecting invalid PTSD symptom presentations are provided. KeywordsPosttraumatic stress disorder–Malingering–Neuropsychological test–Anxiety disorder–War
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(1):24-31.
• Article: Do Motivations for Malingering Matter? Symptoms of Malingered PTSD as a Function of Motivation and Trauma Type

  Kristine A. Peace, Kimberly A. Masliuk
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Psychological disorders associated with traumatic events, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), may be prone to malingering due to the subjective nature of trauma symptomology. In general, symptoms tend to be inflated when an external reward (i.e., compensation) is associated with the claim. The present study was designed to test whether malingered claims of PTSD symptoms differed as a function of the type of trauma being malingered (accident, disaster, sexual assault) and the motivation for malingering (compensation, attention, revenge, no motivation). Participants were randomly assigned into conditions, given malingering instructions, and then asked to complete three measures of trauma symptoms (Impact of Event Scale—Revised; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist; Trauma Symptom Inventory). Results indicated that participants in the sexual assault condition produced higher symptom reports on nearly all scales. Revenge and compensation motivations yielded elevated symptom scores. Further, individuals rated high in fantasy proneness and dissociation produced elevated scores on atypical responding and most clinical scales. More research is needed to examine the extent to which different motivations and trauma types influence symptom reporting. KeywordsMalingering–PTSD–Motivation–Trauma–Fantasy proneness–Dissociation
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(1):44-55.
• Article: Ambiguous Measures of Unknown Constructs: The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (aka Symptom Validity Scale, FBS, FBS-r)

  Carlton S. Gass, Carolyn L. Williams, Edward Cumella, James N. Butcher, Zina Kally
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The Fake Bad Scale (FBS; Symptom Validity Scale) has fundamental psychometric flaws, interpretive problems, and potentially adverse societal consequences that are not appreciated by Ben-Porath et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 2(1), 62–85, 2009a, b). The FBS was constructed without due consideration to scientifically based guidelines for scale development (Clark and Watson, Psychological Assessment 7, 309–319, 1995; Jackson, Psychological Review 78, 229–248, 1971; Nunnally 1978; Holden and Troister, Canadian Psychology 50, 120–130, 2009). After almost two decades in existence, its face, content, and construct validity have not been established in the empirical literature. Oft-cited discriminant studies that appear to support the FBS are premature because of the scale’s unestablished psychometric foundation. In addition, these studies have significant methodological weaknesses that preclude definitive conclusions about what the scale actually measures. We review these weaknesses and recent legal cases that challenge the scale. We recommend that the FBS’s validity and fairness be addressed in an independent scientific review by the Buros Mental Measurement Test Evaluation System, a non-profit center specializing in the evaluation of commercially available tests. KeywordsMMPI-2 fake bad scale-Buros mental measurement test evaluation system-Malingering-Symptom validity
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 3(1):81-85.
• Article: Torts, Damages, and Malpractice

  David L. Shapiro
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 2(2):100-108.
• Article: Detection of Malingered ADHD Using the MMPI-2-RF

  Jordan P. Harp, Lindsey J. Jasinski, Anne L. Shandera-Ochsner, Lisa H. Mason, David T. R. Berry
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: This study examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scales for detecting feigning and exaggeration of attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) among college students. Under a simulation study design, participants with and without ADHD were assigned to perform honestly or to feign or exaggerate deficits related to ADHD while completing self-report symptom inventories. Participants instructed to feign produced symptom profiles similar to honest clinical profiles and more severe than honest nonclinical profiles. Participants with ADHD instructed to exaggerate produced less severe profiles than those instructed to feign and more severe profiles than clinical controls. MMPI-2-RF scale Fp-r showed potential for use in malingered ADHD detection at a revised cut score, which was significantly lower than the cut score suggested in the test manual; use of the revised cut score will require further validation. Scales F-r, Fs, and FBS-r did not classify well, but should be assessed in future studies of malingered ADHD. Detection of exaggeration was consistently poorer than detection of feigning. KeywordsADHD–MMPI-2-RF–Malingering detection
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(1):32-43.
• Article: The Detection of Feigned Psychiatric Disorders Using the MMPI-2-RF Overreporting Validity Scales: An Analog Investigation

  Brandee E. Marion, Martin Sellbom, R. Michael Bagby
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Individuals who are motivated to feign psychological problems to achieve a desired outcome (e.g., insanity defense) may overreport symptoms of psychopathology, with type of pathology being dependent on the setting. In the current investigation, we examined the utility of the overreporting validity scales (infrequent responses [F-r], infrequent psychopathology responses [FP-r], infrequent somatic responses [Fs], and symptom validity [FBS-r]) on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (Ben-Porath and Tellegen 2008) to detect research participants instructed to simulate one of three mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia (SCH), or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The restructured clinical (RC) and overreporting validity scale scores of bona fide psychiatric patients with a primary diagnosis of either MDD, SCH, or PTSD were compared to two groups of simulators—naïve (i.e., undergraduate students with no training in mental disorders) and sophisticated (i.e., individuals with advanced training in psychopathology or personal experience with the disorder asked to overreport symptoms). Examination of the RC Scale profiles revealed that the sophisticated simulators produced symptom profiles more similar to the profiles of the psychiatric patients than did the naïve simulators. For the overreporting validity scales, the sophisticated simulators were less likely to be detected as feigning compared to the naïve simulators; overall, the validity scales were able to distinguish patients from simulators and accurately classify most of the simulators regardless of their level of “symptom” sophistication. Examination and comparison of the validity scales revealed that across disorders and level of research participant symptom sophistication, the FP-r scale best differentiated simulators from patients. KeywordsMMPI-2-RF–Malingering–Overreporting–Validity scales–Schizophrenia–Depression–PTSD
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(1):1-12.
• Article: Ontario Psychological Association Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment in Auto Insurance Claims

  Amber Smith, OPA Auto Task Force
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The Ontario Psychological Association Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment in Auto Insurance Claims was published on the Ontario Psychological Association website in July, 2010 (Smith, A., and OPA Auto Task Force, 2010, Ontario Psychological Association Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment in Auto Insurance Claims. Ontario Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.psych.on.ca/files/members/OPA_Auto_Practice_Guidelines_July292010_July_30_2010.pdf). Excerpts are reproduced in the journal because of the comprehensive nature of the document. To our knowledge, this is the first time that state or provincial guidelines have included all the major psychological diagnoses in rehabilitation work with motor vehicle accident survivors (chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression). Space limitations preclude publishing of the full document, but it should be consulted. The present excerpt focuses on the nature of the psychological injuries and the best practices in treating them, along with cautions for assessment, comorbidities and polytrauma, litigation distress and barriers and complications in recovery. KeywordsTreatment guidelines–Ontario–MVA survivors
  Psychological Injury and Law 04/2012; 4(2):89-126.