would obtain a proportion of correct responses, based
on chance alone, when presented with a multiple-
choice format. Performance markedly below this
chance level is strong evidence of purposeful failure
(i.e., malingering). For this strategy to be effective,
each alternative must have a similar likelihood of
being chosen.Forced Choice Testing.This strategy relies on the accu-
rate establishment of normative data for cognitively
impaired individuals. Individuals who perform far
worse than the normative data on a multiple-choice
test of cognitive abilities are suspected to be feigning.
This strategy is vulnerable to errors because norma-
tive data do not take into account multiple cognitive
conditions and complications by mental disorders and
ineffective coping.UUnneexxppeecctteedd PPaatttteerrnnss
Magnitude of Error.This strategy relies on the identi-
fication of patterns of failure on cognitive tasks that
are atypically incorrect. As the name denotes, it is the
magnitude of incorrect endorsements, not simply the
presence of an incorrect response, that indicates feign-
ing based on this strategy. The magnitude of error
specifically relies on a malingerer’s tendency to report
blatantly incorrect answers as opposed to “plausibly”
incorrect answers.Performance Curve.This strategy compares perfor-
mance on easier tasks with performance on more dif-
ficult tasks. If individuals perform worse on easy tasks
than on difficult tasks, feigning impairment can be
suspected. This strategy can be very effective, espe-
cially with measures that represent (a) a wide range of
item difficulty and (b) the absence of an obvious pro-
gression from simple to difficult items.Violation of Learning Principles (VLP).This strategy
relies on established learning principles to identify
atypical performance of feigners that is incompatible
with our knowledge of learning. When a person does
not conform to the expected pattern of results based
on a learning principle, he or she is suspected to be
feigning cognitive deficits. As a good example,
impaired individuals are consistently more successful
at recognition than recall because the latter places a
greater demand on memory abilities. When recall
equals or even surpasses recognition, an importantlearning principle has been violated. This violation is
indicative of feigned cognitive impairment.Dozens of measures for feigned cognitive impair-
ment have been developed in the past decade. Many
measures are based on a single detection strategy (e.g.,
floor effect) and are vulnerable to coaching (e.g., put
forth a good effort). Forensic practitioners should look
for well-validated measures that have been tested with
multiple groups representing different cognitive condi-
tions. An example is the Test of Malingered Memory.
In addition, practitioners may wish to include a mea-
sure that relies on symptom validity testing, such as the
Portland Digit Recognition Test. Although such mea-
sures identify only a minority of malingerers, they are
accurate in these classifications with very small false-
positive rates.Conclusion
Malingering is a superordinate issue in forensic eval-
uations. Conclusions about malingering are likely to
trump all other diagnostic and forensic considerations.
Because of its importance, forensic clinicians must
take special care to ensure the accuracy of their deter-
minations. Whenever feasible, these determinations
should use multiple detection strategies and several
validated malingering measures. Further corrobora-
tion should be sought via clinical interviews and col-
lateral sources (e.g., informant interviews and mental
health records). Finally, the classification of malinger-
ing does not truncate the assessment process. Many
malingerers also have genuine disorders that may be
relevant to the forensic referral.Richard RogersSee alsoForensic Assessment; Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2); Structured Interview
of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)Further Readings
Reynolds, C. R. (Ed.). (1998). Detection of malingering
during head injury litigation.New York: Plenum.
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (1997). Clinical assessment of malingering
and deception(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (in press). Clinical assessment of
malingering and deception(3rd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.474 ———MalingeringM-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 474