Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
19 (2004) 73–88
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
Accepted 3 September 2002
Two student groups, introductory psychology (n = 91) and advanced neuroscience (n = 34) under-
graduates, 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
lingering detection). Analyses revealed a Motivation×Student 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 Motivation ×Coaching interaction on the accuracy variables indicated that those in the compen-
sation condition performed the most poorly, and that coaching plus warning only tempers malingering
on memory tasks, not timed tasks.
© 2002 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Malingering; Head injury; Motivation; Coaching
Simulation experiments in the malingering of head injury have provided valuable informa-
tion about how normal individuals would feign brain damage. It has been shown, for instance,
∗Tel.: +1-719-389-6598; fax: +1-719-389-6284.
E-mail address: email@example.com (K. Erdal).
0887-6177/$ – see front matter © 2002 National Academy of Neuropsychology.
K. Erdal / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 73–88
that malingerers generally overestimate the impairments associated with head injury (e.g.,
Coleman, Rapport, Millis, Ricker, & Farchione, 1998; Guilmette, Hart, & Giuliano, 1993;
Iverson & Franzen, 1998; Mittenberg, Azrin, Millsaps, & Heilbronner, 1993), often display
unusual error patterns on neuropsychological tests (Benton & Spreen, 1961; Osimani, Alon,
Berger, & Abarbanel, 1997), produce more believable results on symptom checklists than on
clinical tests (Martin, Hayes, & Gouvier, 1996), and perform worse on more obvious neu-
ropsychological tasks than subtle ones (Bernard, McGrath, & Houston, 1996).
Despite limitations to their direct generalizability to clinical practice, simulated malin-
gering experiments have contributed to the development of new measures to detect malin-
gering (Davis, King, Bloodworth, Spring, & Klebe, 1997; Schagen, Schmand, de Sterke, &
Lindeboom, 1997; Tombaugh, 1997), and have suggested the use of cut-off scores (Arnett,
Branham, & Hiscock, 1994; Iverson, 1995; Mittenberg, Theroux-Fichera, Zielinski, &
Heilbronner, 1995) that inform practitioners and help them to detect “real world” malin-
gering. There remain, however, methodological issues in simulated malingering studies which
require standardization, and several variables whose impact on malingering behavior have not
yet been investigated.
Participants in simulated malingering studies are often given a role to play during the
assessment. The description of the role may include the motive of the participant to fake
a head injury. The typical motive is a hypothetical sum of money from a personal injury
settlement, the amount of which has been demonstrated to be unimportant (Bernard, 1990;
Martin, Bolter, Todd, Gouvier, & Niccolls, 1993). Alternately, several studies have used an
“avoiding blame” motive in which participants were instructed to perform on tests in order
to avoid “serious trouble” rather than gain compensation (Iverson, 1995; Iverson, Franzen, &
McCracken, 1994); however, these studies did not employ a compensation group with which
to compare their results.
A comparison of motivations is important as it has been shown that the scripts given to
participants in simulated malingering experiments affect the manner in which the participants
malinger (Arnett et al., 1995). Indeed, in clinical practice, the motivations for malingering
head injury are myriad and if litigation scenarios can be considered analogous to experimental
scripts, how different motivations affect neuropsychological test performance must be inves-
tigated. In non-experimental malingering studies, it has been shown that litigants perform
more poorly on neuropsychological tests than similarly or more severely injured non-litigants
(Binder & Willis, 1991; Lee, Loring, & Martin, 1992; Meyers & Volbrecht, 1998). Determin-
ing patterns of performance based on the type of secondary gain available to the participant
or patient may ultimately be helpful in identifying malingering in clinical settings.
Participants in simulated malingering studies may also be given “coaching” instructions
on how to fake a believable head injury. However, simulated malingering research has not
K. Erdal/Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 73–88
employed terminology, such as “coaching,” in a consistent manner across studies, leaving
unanswered questions about what should be included in a coaching manipulation. These in-
consistencies may have obfuscated findings in several experiments.
“Coaching” has been construed as aiding participants (or patients) in their attempts to per-
form on neuropsychological tests as if they are head injured when they are not, or as if they
are more severely head injured than they are. Coaching has been demonstrated to temper fla-
affix what might be considered a “warning” addendum to the instructions (i.e., “do not appear
too obvious in your attempts or you will be suspected of faking”; “there are ways to detect
faking on these tests”) (Arnett et al., 1995; Inman, Vickery, Lamb, Edwards, & Smith, 1998;
Johnson & Lesniak-Karpiak, 1997; Killgore & DellaPietra, 2000; McKinzey, Podd, Krehbiel,
Mensch, & Trombka, 1997; Rose et al., 1995; Rose et al., 1998; Slick, Hopp, Strauss, &
may not engender the same type of malingering performance. Indeed, Johnson and Lesniak-
Karpiak (1997) and Suhr and Gunstad (2000) found that adding an explicit “warning” state-
ment about malingering detection to their coached condition (which entailed a description of
providing test-taking strategies, and these two variables should be separated and compared.
1.3. Knowledge of neuropsychology
A comprehensive knowledge of neuropsychology and the effects of head injury cannot be
adequately “coached” in a short experimental vignette, although coaching provides specific
information toward the goal of impaired neuropsychological test performance. Knowledge
about head injury can range from that of the naive but coached participant to, presumably, that
of the professionals who work with head-injured patients. However, it is unclear which group
would provide more realistic neuropsychological test performance when asked to malinger a
Arnett et al. (1995) found that medical students performed more poorly on the 15-Item
Test (FIT) than college students when asked to malinger a head injury. Hayward, Hall, Hunt,
and Zubrick (1987) found that registered nurses who worked with brain injured patients per-
formed more poorly overall on neuropsychological tests than the patients themselves when
asked to malinger their patients’ performance. And Schwartz, Gramling, Kerr, and Morin
Memory Scale (WMS) than attorneys asked to malinger, the attorneys more closely approxi-
mating the head-injured group’s performance.
K. Erdal/Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 73–88
Iverson, G., & Franzen, M. (1996). Using multiple objective memory procedures to detect simulated malingering.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18(1), 38–51.
Iverson, G., & Franzen, M. (1998). Detecting malingered memory deficits with the Recognition Memory Test.
Brain Injury, 12(4), 275–282.
Iverson, G., Franzen, M., & McCracken, L. (1994). Application of a forced-choice memory procedure designed
to detect experimental malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9(5), 437–450.
Johnson, J., & Lesniak-Karpiak, K. (1997). The effect of warning on malingering on memory and motor tasks in
college samples. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12(3), 231–238.
Killgore, W., & DellaPietra, L. (2000). Using the WMS-III to detect malingering: Empirical validation of the
Rarely Missed Index (RMI). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(6), 761–771.
Lee, G., Loring, D., & Martin, R. (1992). Rey’s 15-Item Visual Memory Test for the detection of malingering:
Normative observations on patients with neurological disorders. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 43–46.
Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, R., Bolter, J., Todd, M., Gouvier, W., & Niccolls, R. (1993). Effects of sophistication and motivation on
the detection of malingered memory performance using a computerized forced-choice task. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15(6), 867–880.
Martin, R., Hayes, J., & Gouvier, W. (1996). Differential vulnerability between postconcussion self-report and
objective malingering tests in identifying simulated mild head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 18(2), 265–275.
McKinzey, R., Podd, M., Krehbiel, M., Mensch, A., & Trombka, C. (1997). Detection of malingering on the
Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: An initial and cross-validation. Archives of Clinical Neuorpsy-
chology, 12(5), 505–512.
Meyers, J., & Volbrecht, M. (1998). Validation of Reliable Digits for detection of malingering. Assessment, 5(3),
Mills, J. (1958). Changes in moral attitudes following temptation. Journal of Personality, 26, 517–531.
Mittenberg, W., Azrin, R., Millsaps, C., & Heilbronner, R. (1993). Identification of malingered head injury on
the Wechsler Memory Scale—Revised. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 34–40.
Mittenberg, W., Theroux-Fichera, S., Zielinski, R., & Heilbronner, R. (1995). Identification of malingered head
injury on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
Osimani, A., Alon, A., Berger, A., & Abarbanel, J. (1997). Use of the Stroop phenomenon as a diagnostic tool
for malingering. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 62, 617–621.
Paul, D., Franzen, M., Cohen, S., & Fremouw, W. (1992). An investigation into the reliability and validity of
two tests used in the detection of dissimulation. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 1–9.
Rees, L.,Tombaugh, T.,Gansler, D.,&Moczynski, N.(1998).FivevalidationexperimentsoftheTestofMemory
Malingering (TOMM). Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 10–20.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique. Archives de Psychologie,
Rey, A. (1964). L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Rogers, R. (1990). Models of feigned mental illness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(3),
Rogers, R., & Cavanaugh, J. (1983). “Nothing but the truth” ... A reexamination of malingering. Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, 11(4), 443–459.
Rose, F., Hall, S., & Szalda-Petree, A. (1995). Portland Digit Recognition Test—Computerized: Measuring
response latency improves the detection of malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9(2), 124–134.
Rose, F., Hall, S., Szalda-Petree, A., & Bach, P. (1998). A comparison of four tests of malingering and the effects
of coaching. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13(4), 349–363.
Schagen, S., Schmand, B., de Sterke, S., & Lindeboom, J. (1997). Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test: A new
Schretlen, D., Brandt, J., Krafft, L., & Van Gorp, W. (1991). Some caveats in using the Rey 15-Item Memory
Test to detect malingered amnesia. Psychological Assessment, 3(4), 667–673.
K. Erdal / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 73–88
Schwartz, S., Gramling, S., Kerr, K., & Morin, C. (1998). Evaluation of intellect and deficit specific information
on the ability to fake memory deficits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 21(3), 261–272.
Slick, D., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., & Spellacy, F. (1996). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Efficiency for detecting
feigned memory impairment and relationship to neuropsychological tests and MMPI-2 validity scales. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18(6), 911–922.
Suhr, J., & Gunstad, J. (2000). The effects of coaching on the sensitivity and specificity of malingering measures.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15(5), 415–424.
Tombaugh, T. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and
cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260–268.
Youngjohn, J., Lees-Haley, P., & Binder, L. (1999). Comment: Warning malingerers produces more sophisticated
malingerers. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14(6), 511–515.