Testing

Question 1

What are some internal influences on response style?

Answer 1

Reactions to questioned credibility, stigma of SMI/disability status, effects of genuine do

Question 2

What are Rogers’ 6 response styles?

Answer 2

1) Malingering
2) Feigning
3) Defensiveness
4) Irrelevant responding (disengaged, random, uninformative)
5) Dissimulation (inaccurate portrayal, but malingering or feigning inapplicable)
6) Hybrid

FYI - never use incomplete effort (not the same as feigning) and secondary gain

Question 3

What are 3 explanatory models for malingering?

Answer 3

1) Pathogenic: mad or trying to control underlying legit dysfunction
2) Criminological: bad, focus on aspd features such opportunistic bx and deception
3) Adaptational: malingering is situational and advantageous in an adversarial context

Question 4

How often does malingering occur?

Answer 4

15-17% of forensic cases.

Question 5

What useful research designs are used to validate measures of response style?

Answer 5

1) Simulation
2) Known-groups comparisons
3) Bootstrapping comparisons

Question 6

What is a simulation design?

Answer 6

Useful research design used to validate measures of response style. S randomly assigned to control or simulation group - good internal validity, limited external

Question 7

What is a know-groups comparison?

Answer 7

Useful research design used to validate measures of response style. Independently classified malingerers v. genuine patients. Depends on rigor used to classify. Good external validity, limited internal.

Question 8

What is a bootstrapping comparison?

Answer 8

Useful research design used to validate measures of response style. Individuals with deviant scores on multiple measures are compared with others who don’t have deviant scores. Can be useful in determining effect sizes, but can’t reliably give estimates of specificity/sensitivity.

Question 9

What are deficient research designs for validating measures of response style?

Answer 9

Partial-criterion comparisons (insufficient classification in conducting known-groups design)

Differential-prevalence comparisons (assuming certain groups will feign or be defensive)

Question 10

If results across multiple psychological tests and sources of info suggest someone is exaggerating their deficits, does that mean you have increased accuracy?

Answer 10

No. Merely means you can have increased confidence in conclusions. Don’t conflate increased confidence with increased accuracy.

Question 11

What are two ways to detect malingering of clinical impairment?

Answer 11

Unlikely detection strategies and amplified detection strategies.

Question 12

What are some unlikely detection strategies?

Answer 12

Rare symptoms, improbable symptoms, unlikely sx combos, erroneous stereotypical sign, reported v. observed sx, elevations on incongruent scales of pathology.

RICERS
R(are), I(mprobable), C(ombo unlikely), E(rror stereotype), R(eported v. obs), S(cales incongruent)

Question 13

What are some amplified detection strategies?

Answer 13

Unbearable sx severity, broad and indiscriminant array of sxs, and obvious v. subtle sx.

“Everything (indiscriminant) is obviously unbearable.”

Question 14

What does the research say about the MMPI-2 and malingering?

Answer 14

FBS correlated with feigners and gen impairment. Fp may be promising, but not the best measure for feigning somatic complaints in civil litigation.

Question 15

What does the research say about the PAI and malingering?

Answer 15

Strength in no overllaping itmes across scales. Uses uniform cut scores. RDF lacks discriminant validity and shouldn’t be used alone. NIM could be used to rule out feigning.

Question 16

What does the research say about the SIRS-2 and malingering?

Answer 16

Good IRR and discriminant validity. Good convergent validity with the MMPI-2.

Question 17

When someone feigns cognitive impairment, what is their objective? In other words, what are they doing?

Answer 17

Engaging in effortful failure.

Question 18

How often are cognitive deficits malingered?

Answer 18

4-64%

Question 19

What are the two ways to detect feigned cognitive impairment?

Answer 19

Unlikely presentations and excessive impairment

Question 20

Name excessive impairment detection strategies.

Answer 20

Floor effect, SVT, and forced-choice testing.

Question 21

Name unlikely presentations detection strategies.

Answer 21

Magnitude of error, performance curve, atypical presentation, psychological sequelae, and response time measures.

VIP: looks at item difficulty and compares with performance
The symptom combination scale on the SIMS is an example.

Question 22

What is the floor effect?

Answer 22

Use of simple tasks that appear moderately complex, but can be completed by most people (e.g., TOMM).

Note, can be easily coached. It may not work well across all clinical samples (e.g., dementia v. brain injury on the TOMM).

Question 23

What is symptom validity testing?

Answer 23

Examines improbable failure rate based on statistical probability (i.e., significantly below chance; tends to only effective with extreme forms of feigning).

Failed SVT is not always intentional.

Question 24

What are the 3 major improvements that were made with the second version of the SIRS?

Answer 24

1) The RS-Total scale uses rare sx strategy on non-primary scale items for differentiating feigners from patients with genuine but atypical presentations.
2) The Modified Total (MT) Index is used for SIRS-2 protocols with one or more scales in the probable or definite range. It is based on the sum of 4 primary scales and used to differentiate both classified (i.e., feigning and genuine) and indeterminate groups.
3) The SIRS-2 research uncovered a small number of feigners who remained completely disengaged during the SIRS-2 administration, declining to report vitually any common sx found in clinical populations. The Supplemental Scale (SS) Index discriminates thses disengaged persons from other feigners and genuine responders. They are placed in the indeterminate-evaluate category so that the feigning can be evaluated by other measures.

Question 25

What are the two indeterminate groups on the SIRS-2?

Answer 25

1) Indeterminate-evaluate: Likely to be feigning, but data are inconclusive
2) Indeterminate-general: Likely to be genuine, but the data are inconclusive

Question 26

What are some strengths of the SIRS-2?

Answer 26

• Validation includes both simulation and known groups comparisons, and thus capitalizes on both internal and external validity, respectively.
• Strong discriminant validity
• The SIRS primary scales were designed to evaluate specific detection strategies for feigning/based in known approaches to malingering vs. post hoc analyses such as bootstrapping (e.g., Rogers Discriminant Function on the PAI)
• The interrater reliability for the SIRS is high
• The SEM for hte SIRS is unparalleled among measures of response styles
• The SIRS-2 uses consistent cutoff scores that allow for direct comparisons across research studies and clinical samples
• The SIRS-2 decision model is deisgned to provide highly accurate determinations of feigned mental disorders and genuine responding. Data is also provided to distinguishing Indet-Evaluate and Indet-General groups.
• The disengagement response style is systematically evaluated in the SIRS-2
• There is a Spanish SIRS-2

Question 27

What are some weaknesses of the SIRS-2

Answer 27

• Not intended to evaluate feigned cognitive impairment or memory, intellectual fx.
• Specific coaching on the SIRS-2 data is likely to invalidate its classification
• Take special care in administering this to people with mild ID. Their verbal abilities (comprehension and communication) are critical- BOLO for confusion or uncertainty. It is permissible to proactively clarify the meaning of certain words for SIRS inquiries, but document it.