civil forensically referred samples) and individuals
referred for clinical but nonforensic evaluations. The
reliability compares favorably with the MMPI clinical
scales, which were in the .70 to .90 range.
Validation studies were performed in a number of
contexts. Paradigms were employed to detect dissimu-
lation (for college students and prison inmates) and
guided dissimulation in which the subjects were given
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disordersof the American Psychiatric Association cri-
teria for the disorders. Scores were also obtained from
samples of inpatients and referred forensic and clinical
outpatients. These procedures yielded Malingering
(MAL), the scale used to detect malingering.
Test interpretation starts with the Inconsistency
(INC) scale. A high INC score indicates that the subject
was so inconsistent that the test should not be inter-
preted. This could be due to a poor reading level or con-
scious resistance to test taking. If the INC elevation is
less than a T-score of 70, it is possible to interpret the
MAL scale. In the discussion of MAL or the malinger-
ing scale of the MPS in the manual, the authors tried to
convey the notion that the conclusion that a person is
malingering is a probability statement. The probability
relates directly to the base rate of the underlying con-
struct and would be expected to vary from sample to
sample. For instance, if a person obtains a MAL
T-score of 73 where the base rate of malingering is
assumed to be 50%, 20%, or 10%, the concluded prob-
ability of malingering is 72%, 38%, or 22%, respec-
tively. An assessor interpreting the test report should,
therefore, be able to explain his or her assumptions
about base rates in the population he or she tests.
One great advantage of the instrument is also one of
its greatest disadvantages: The scoring of the individ-
ual items has been protected. The item scoring has not
been printed in any publication and has been further
protected by providing the test in computer-scored
form only. (The Western Psychological Services does,
however, make available the individual items and their
scoring to qualified persons who apply.) An advantage
of this feature is that it is impossible for a prospective
subject to study for and, therefore, foil the exam. A dis-
advantage of this feature is that the test cannot be eas-
ily and quickly scored by clinicians and researchers.
This may discourage research on this instrument, a
particularly important problem for validating the
experimental clinical scales.
One advance of this instrument is that it broadened
the realm of feigned psychopathology covered in
malingering instruments, particularly to include thosesymptoms related to trauma to capture the more
sophisticated feigner. But perhaps the best advance in
the construction and presentation of this instrument is
the conceptualization of malingering as a probability
statement, which depends on the assumptions the
diagnostician makes about the base rates of malinger-
ing in his or her clinical sample. These are assump-
tions that are all too often ignored by the forensic
clinician, are rarely questioned by even the skilled
cross-examiner, and yet are critical to the trier of fact
where mental state is at issue.Leigh SilvertonSee alsoForensic Assessment; MalingeringFurther Readings
Fulero, S. (2002). Review of the malingering probability
scale. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.),The fourteenth
mental measurements yearbook.Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Silverton, L., & Gruber, C. (1998). Malingering Probability
Scale (MPS) manual.Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.MANDATED COMMUNITYTREATMENT
Treating people with a mental disorder without their
consent always has been the defining human rights
issue in mental health law. For centuries, unwanted
treatment took place in a closed institution—a mental
hospital. What has changed is that in recent years the
locus of involuntary treatment has shifted from the
closed institution to the open community. Much of the
strident policy debate on outpatient commitment—a
civil court order requiring a person to adhere to mental
health treatment in the community—treats it as if it
were simply an extension of inpatient commitment,
viewing it within the same conceptual and legal frame-
work historically used to analyze commitment to a
mental hospital. Increasingly, however, it is becoming
apparent that concepts developed within a closed insti-
tutional context do not translate well to the much more
open-textured context of the community. It was for a
good reason that mental hospitals have been described
as “total institutions”—a single source supplied an indi-
vidual’s lodging, delivered benefits, maintained order,
and provided treatment. In the community, however,476 ———Mandated Community TreatmentM-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 476