The effects of motivation, coaching, and knowledge of neuropsychology on the simulated malingering of head injury.

Department of Psychology, The Colorado College, 14 East Cache La Poudre Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, USA.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (Impact Factor: 1.92). 02/2004; 19(1):73-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6177(02)00214-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two student groups, introductory psychology (n=91) and advanced neuroscience (n=34) undergraduates, were asked to malinger a head injury on Rey's 15-Item Test (FIT) and Dot Counting Test (DCT). The participants were randomly assigned to one of three motivation conditions (no motivation given, compensation, avoidance of blame for a motor vehicle accident) and to one of three coaching conditions (no coaching, coaching post-concussive symptoms, coaching symptoms plus warning of malingering detection). Analyses revealed a MotivationxStudent Group interaction on the FIT, indicating that the advanced neuroscience students, particularly when in the compensation condition, malingered the most flagrantly. On the DCT, main effects for motivation and coaching on the qualitative variables and a MotivationxCoaching interaction on the accuracy variables indicated that those in the compensation condition performed the most poorly, and that coaching plus warning only tempers malingering on memory tasks, not timed tasks.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Practice guidelines recommend the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) to detect noncredible performance during neuropsychological evaluations, and PVTs embedded in standard cognitive tests achieve this goal most efficiently. The present study examined the utility of the Comalli version of the Stroop Test as a measure of response bias in a large sample of "real world" noncredible patients (n = 129) as compared with credible neuropsychology clinic patients (n=233). The credible group performed significantly better than the noncredible group on all trials, but particularly on word-reading (Stroop A) and color-naming (Stroop B); cut-scores for Stroop A and Stroop B trials were associated with moderate sensitivity (49-53%) as compared to the low sensitivity found for the color interference trial (29%). Some types of diagnoses (including learning disability, severe traumatic brain injury, psychosis, and depression), very advanced age (⩾80), and lowered IQ were associated with increased rates of false positive identifications, suggesting the need for some adjustments to cut-offs in these subgroups. Despite some previous reports of an inverted Stroop effect (i.e., color-naming worse than color interference) in noncredible subjects, individual Stroop word reading and color naming trials were much more effective in identifying response bias.
    The Clinical Neuropsychologist 06/2013; DOI:10.1080/13854046.2013.803603 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evaluation of resistance to coaching is an important step in the validation of symptom validity tests (SVTs) for clinical use in neuropsychological evaluations. In the present study coaching effects were evaluated for two recently developed SVTs, the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NVMSVT) as compared with a well-validated existing SVT, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). This study used a simulation design that included 103 healthy younger study volunteers who were randomly assigned into one of four conditions: Symptom Coaching, Test Coaching, Combined Coaching, or Best Effort Control. Specificity for all SVTs was excellent (96-100%). Test Coaching, either alone or combined with Symptom Coaching, was more effective than Symptom Coaching alone in producing raw scores suggestive of "better" effort for all SVTs. However, there were only modest declines in the obtained sensitivity, which remained above 80% for all SVTs. These results provide empirical support for the classification accuracy of the MSVT and NVMSVT, even when challenged with combined coaching interventions. However, further validation using known-groups designs and clinical samples is needed.
    The Clinical Neuropsychologist 05/2012; 26(5):832-49. DOI:10.1080/13854046.2012.686630 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    The Clinical Neuropsychologist 01/2010; 24(4):559-559. · 1.58 Impact Factor


Available from