Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

AAmmpplliiffiieedd PPrreesseennttaattiioonnss

Indiscriminate Symptom Endorsement. This strategy

relies on the finding that malingerers will report a large

array of psychological symptoms, larger than that of

even the most impaired clinical patients. Endorsement of

a very large number of symptoms may indicate feigning.

Symptom Severity.This strategy relies on the finding

that malingerers will report a large number of symp-

toms as extreme or unbearable. This strategy should not

be confused with indiscriminate symptom endorse-

ment. Symptom severity relies on the amplified “depth”

of symptoms as opposed to the atypical “breadth”

assessed by indiscriminant symptom endorsement.

Obvious Symptoms.This strategy relies on the endorse-

ment of very blatant symptoms of mental illness by

malingerers. Obvious symptoms are different from rare

symptoms due to the typicality of obvious symptom

content. These symptoms are not defined by their rarity

in clinical populations but by their obvious relationship

with severe psychological disorders. Comparison between

an individual’s report of obvious versus more subtle

symptoms has also been useful in the detection of

feigning. Endorsement of a large number of obvious

symptoms may be indicative of feigning.

Erroneous Stereotypes. The erroneous stereotype

strategy relies on common misperceptions about psy-

chological symptom experiences. These symptoms

describe lay nonprofessional general perceptions

about persons with mental disorders. Individuals who

agree with many of these erroneous stereotypes are

likely to be feigning.

Reported Versus Observed Symptoms. This strategy

relies on the observation of individuals’ clinical pre-

sentation and their report of psychological symptoms.

Reporting of symptoms that are more impaired than

what is observed may be an indication of feigning.

The reported versus observed strategy is not a simple

comparison of consistency. Only reports of symptoms

that are “worse” than observed should be considered

as possible feigning.

Many psychological measures possess scales designed

to assess a patient’s likelihood of feigning mental disor-

ders. Currently, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) and Structured Interview of

Reported Symptoms (SIRS) are the most widely used

tests for the detection of feigned mental disorders. The

MMPI–2 possesses an impressive research base demon-

strating its support for the detection of feigning. The

SIRS has been considered by many to be the gold stan-

dard psychological test for the detection of feigned men-

tal disorders. Both measures contain multiple scales that

employ a variety of different detection strategies. For

both the MMPI–2 and the SIRS, research has demon-

strated large to very large effect sizes that demonstrate

marked differences between genuinely disordered and

feigned groups. The basic distinction between the two

measures involves individual classification via utility

analysis. The MMPI–2 is generally ineffective at indi-

vidual classifications because (a) cut scores range

widely and (b) substantial overlaps on validity scales

between genuine and feigned protocols reduce accuracy.

In contrast, the SIRS has established effective cut scores

that minimize false positives and overall errors. Thus,

the SIRS provides accurate clinical data for individual

classifications.

Detection Strategies for

Feigned Cognitive Disorders

The assessment of feigned cognitive impairment has

largely been limited to evaluations of memory impair-

ment and general intellectual functioning. Detection

strategies for feigned cognitive impairment have gen-

erally relied on excessive impairment,which is based

on either unexpectedly poor performance on cognitive

tasks or unexpected patternsthat are characterized by

unlikely endorsement patterns of items assessing cog-

nitive abilities.

The following are detection strategies based on

excessive impairment and unexpected patterns.

EExxcceessssiivvee IImmppaaiirrmmeenntt

Floor Effect.This strategy relies on the failure of

malingerers to answer accurately very simple test

items. Even the most cognitively impaired individuals

are able to answer floor-effect items correctly.

Individuals who fail to endorse floor-effect items are

likely to be indicative of feigning.

Symptom Validity Testing.This strategy relies on the

probability that a genuine person without any ability

Malingering——— 473

M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 473