Nathan D. Gillard’s research while affiliated with University of North Texas and other places

Risk assessments for offenders often combine past records with current clinical findings from observations, interviews, and test data. Conclusions based on these risk assessments are highly consequential, sometimes resulting in increased criminal sentences or prolonged hospitalization. Therefore, many offenders are motivated to intentionally minimize risk factors and their negative consequences. Positive impression management (PIM) is especially likely to occur in offenders with high psychopathic traits because goal-directed deception is reflected in several of psychopathy's core traits of the disorder, such as manipulativeness, glibness, and superficial charm. However, this connection appears to be based on the conceptual understanding of psychopathy, and has rarely been examined empirically for either frequency of or success at deception. The current study examined the ability of a jail sample to intentionally minimize risk factors and related criminal attributes using a repeated measures, simulation design. In general, offenders were able to effectively use PIM to lower scores on the HCR-20 and the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), while the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), as a measure of cognitive styles, was more resistant to such minimization. Psychopathic traits, especially high Factor 1 scores (i.e., affective/interpersonal), were associated with greater PIM. Important differences in the willingness and ability to use deception were found based on the (a) mode of administration (i.e., interview vs. self-report) and (b) level of psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R). The important implications of this research are discussed for risk assessment procedures regarding likely areas of deception and its detection. The current research also informs the growing literature on the connection between psychopathic traits and deception.

Time-efficient screens for feigned mental disorders (FMDs) constitute important tools in forensic assessments. The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) is a 75-item true–false questionnaire that has been extensively studied as an FMD screen. However, the SIMS scales are not based on established detection strategies, and only its total score is utilized as a feigning screen. This investigation develops two new feigning scales based on well-established detection-strategies: rare symptoms (RS) and symptom combinations (SC). They are studied in a between-subjects simulation design using inpatients with partial-malingering (i.e., patients with genuine disorders asked to feign greater disabilities) conditions. Subject to future cross-validation, the SC scale evidenced the highest effect size (d = 2.01) and appeared the most effective at ruling out examinees, who have a high likelihood of genuine responding. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

To guard against coerced self-incrimination, the Supreme Court of the United States outlined in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) what arresting officers must convey to custodial suspects for resulting statements to be admissible into evidence. During the ensuing decades, the Court has continued to grapple with the requisite wording and practical enforcement of these Constitutional rights. In Florida v. Powell (2010), the Court upheld the conviction of a defendant whose Miranda warning affirmed that before questioning he had the right to an attorney, but failed to specify that during questioning he had this right as well. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court ruled that the right to silence must be invoked explicitly, while valid Miranda waivers could be "implied" by a suspect's actions as well as words. The current study employed a mock crime design to assess the practical effects of these 2 rulings on waiver decisions. The wording change enabled by Powell had little effect on Miranda knowledge and reasoning. With regard to Thompkins, the type of waiver profoundly affected subsequent decisions: 13.7% exercised their rights following implied waivers versus 81.1% with explicit waivers. Importantly, the implied waiver condition produced much higher percentages of confessions (17.6% vs. 3.8%) and of admissions about incriminating information (29.4% vs. 9.4%). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

This online resource for mental health practitioners presents a variety of information required in daily practice in one easy-to-use resource. Covering the entire spectrum of practice issues–from diagnostic codes, practice guidelines, treatment principles, and report checklists, to insight and advice from today's most respected clinicians–this peerless reference gives access to the whole range of current knowledge. It covers assessment and diagnosis, testing and psychometrics, treatment and psychotherapy, biology and pharmacotherapy, self-help resources, ethical and legal issues, forensic practice, financial and insurance matters, and prevention and consultation. Chapters are clearly written by master clinicians and include easy-to-read checklists and tables as well as helpful advice.

A major strength of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is its systematic assessment of response styles, including feigned mental disorders. Recently, Mogge, Lepage, Bell, and Ragatz developed and provided the initial validation for the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS). Using rare symptoms as its detection strategy for feigning, the usefulness of NDS was examined via a known-groups comparison. The current study sought to cross-validate the NDS by implementing a between-subjects simulation design. Simulators were asked to feign total disability in an effort to secure unwarranted compensation from their insurance company. Even in an inpatient sample with severe Axis I disorders and concomitant impairment, the NDS proved effective as a rare-symptom strategy with low levels of item endorsement that remained mostly stable across genders. For construct validity, the NDS was moderately correlated with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms–Second Edition and other PAI feigning scales. For discriminant validity, it yielded a very large effect size (d = 1.81), surpassing the standard PAI feigning indicators. Utility estimates appeared to be promising for both ruling-out (low probability of feigning) and ruling-in (high probability of feigning) determinations at different base rates. Like earlier research, the data supported the creation of well-defined groups with indeterminate scores (i.e., the cut score ± 1 SEM) removed to avoid high rates of misclassifications for this narrow band.

Research on feigned mental disorders indicates that severe psychopathology coupled with significant trauma histories often complicate feigning determinations, resulting in inaccuracies on otherwise effective measures. As part of malingering assessments, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is often used because of its excellent validation and the availability of three feigning indicators (Negative Impression, Malingering Index, and Rogers Discriminant Function), which have evidenced large effect sizes and clinically useful cut scores. The current study examined the effectiveness of the PAI in a traumatized inpatient sample using a between-subjects simulation design. Although Negative Impression appeared affected by trauma—especially in conjunction with dissociative symptoms—very positive results were found for Malingering Index and Rogers Discriminant Function. They remained relatively unelevated under honest conditions, despite posttraumatic stress disorder and extensive comorbidity. Using single-point cut scores provided moderately good classification of feigned and genuine PAI profiles. For purposes of classification, the authors operationally defined small indeterminate groups that were considered too close to classify (i.e., ±5T of the cut scores). With indeterminate cases removed, the overall classification rates improved modestly. However, the more important finding involved the error rates for the indeterminate group, which exceeded 50%. Directions for further research are discussed.

Programmatic research has made important advances during the last decade in understanding how cognitive and psychological variables affect Miranda comprehension and reasoning. However, the effects of situational stressors are largely overlooked in determining the validity of Miranda waivers. As the first systematic investigation, this study uses a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design on 123 undergraduate participants to examine the effects of being apprehended via a mock crime (i.e., stealing a watch from a Plexiglas case) paradigm on Miranda comprehension and reasoning. Besides the mock-crime condition, the mode of advisement (oral or written) and the length of the warning (124 vs. 228 words) were also investigated. When compared to controls, the mock-crime scenario produced moderate to large effects (ds from .58 to .75) on both Miranda recall and subsequent reasoning. In addition, oral advisements resulted in non-significant trend for decrements in Miranda recall. No main effects were observed for length and no significant interactions were found. Interestingly, specific components (e.g., right to counsel and free legal services) were generally more affected than the more familiar first two components (i.e., right to silence and evidence against you). Within the crime-scenario condition, participants with substantially increased state anxiety predictably performed more poorly than those participants whose state anxiety remained relatively stable. Directions for future research and the implications of these findings on our understanding of Miranda abilities are discussed.

The MMPI and MMPI-2 validity scales have long been accepted as standard tools in the assessment of feigned mental disorders (FMD) based on their extensive empirical validation. Studies are now examining MMPI-2-RF with modified validity scales plus the new Infrequent Somatic Responses Scale (FS) and the recently-adapted Response Bias Scale (RBS). The current investigation used a known-groups design to examine the effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF for differentiating FMD and feigned cognitive impairment (FCI) from patients with genuine disorders for a large civil forensic sample. Criterion measures included the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-2 (SIRS-2) for the FMD group, and below-chance performances on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) for the FCI group. For FMD, both F-r and FP-r produced very large effect sizes (ds > 2.00). Moreover, the absence of severe elevations (≥80T) on F-r proved effective at ruling-out most FMD. For the current study, a FP-r cut score ≥90T for FMD produced virtually no false-positives (0.01) and only a moderate level of false-alarms. As predicted by its detection strategies, most MMPI-2-RF validity scales have limited effectiveness with the FCI group. However, FBS-r and RBS may be useful in conjunction with other clinical data for ruling out FCI for genuine neuropsychological consults. An entirely separate concern is whether certain diagnostic groups, such as major depression, will have marked elevations on MMPI-2-RF scales thereby increasing the likelihood of false-positives. On this point, FP-r performed exceptionally well with unelevated scores (Ms < 55T) consistently across diagnostic categories. KeywordsMalingering–Feigning–Feigned mental disorders–Feigned cognitive impairment–MMPI-2-RF–SIRS-2

In its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States buttressed the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by requiring as a procedural safeguard that various aspects of this privilege be clearly communicated to custodial suspects. Members of the public often believe that their continually media-fueled familiarity with Miranda warnings results in an adequate understanding of Miranda rights—a frequently erroneous assumption that may diminish counsel's motivation to investigate Miranda waivers and may influence court rulings on the validity of such waivers. The current investigation examined Miranda rights misconceptions held by two groups of pretrial defendants: those arrested more recently (i.e., less than 2 weeks ago) and those arrested less recently (i.e., 4 weeks ago or more). The misconceptions of these groups were then contrasted with those of undergraduate students representing a more educated and comparatively unstressed segment of American society. Results revealed a host of widely-held misconceptions, including a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the “right to remain silent” as a legal protection. Moreover, many misconceptions appeared unrelated to intelligence, education, or prior contacts with the criminal justice system. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the validity of Miranda waivers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)