- Email: [email protected]
Symptom validity testing as a method for malingering detection
Abstractsof 11th AnnualMeeting
333
Hart, K. J., Guilmette, T. J., & Elliott, M. Xavier University and Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University. Symptom Validity Testing as a Methodfor Malingering Detection. The Hiscock and Hiscock (1989) forced choice procedure for malingering detection, referred to generally as Symptom Validity Testing, was administered to a group of normals (n = 29) asked to fake memory dysfunction and to a group of significantly brain impaired patients (n = 17). Although previous studies had suggested using chance (50%) level performance as an indication of malingering, the group who had documented, severe cognitive impairment performed well above chance on this task. Also, a significant difference was found between the mean number correct for the two groups (patient Group = 68.8, SD = 5.2; Simulating Group = 43; SD = 15.4), with Simulating subjects performing at a level much lower than that of the cognitively impaired patients. In the present sample, a cut-off score of 65 correct (90% correct) accurately classified 88% of the patient group and 90% of the simulating group. Although the sample sizes are relatively small, the results suggest that this malingering detection method is quite simple, even for significantly impaired individuals, and that even a few errors should begin to raise the suspicion of less than optimal effort or possible exaggeration of pathology. Further development of this instrument for use in malingering detection is also discussed.
Hartlage, L. C. & Williams, B. L. Independent practice and New Medico. Behavioral Screening for Exposure to Potentially Neurotoxic Chemicals. Increasing recognition of the ubiquitousness of potentially neurotoxic chemicals has increased the need for sensitive but cost-efficient screening methods for determining whether exposure to given chemicals (e.g., industrial work exposure: environmental air or water exposure) may indicate the justification for more comprehensive examination of exposed workers or residents for signs of neurotoxicity. Recent research (e.g., Kixmiller, Briggs, Hartlage, & Dean, 1990) has supported the potential of behavioral screening instruments to differentiate between neurologically impaired and normal controls with 90% accuracy, and raised the possibility that such an approach may offer promise for large scale screening of individuals exposed to suspected neurotoxins, to help determine when more comprehensive neuropsychological examination may be indicated. This study examined twenty five individuals who resided in a neighborhood where the presence of potential neurotoxins (aromatic hydrocarbons) was suspected. Each individual completed a Behavior Change Inventory, describing the presence/absence of behavioral phenomena identified as markers of neurological injury in previous research. Positive findings were reported in 21 of 25 individuals, and outside confirmatory findings suggested presence of neurotoxic insult in 23 of the 25. The overlap between Behavior Change Inventory and external confirmatory findings was 21 of 23;
333
Hart, K. J., Guilmette, T. J., & Elliott, M. Xavier University and Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University. Symptom Validity Testing as a Methodfor Malingering Detection. The Hiscock and Hiscock (1989) forced choice procedure for malingering detection, referred to generally as Symptom Validity Testing, was administered to a group of normals (n = 29) asked to fake memory dysfunction and to a group of significantly brain impaired patients (n = 17). Although previous studies had suggested using chance (50%) level performance as an indication of malingering, the group who had documented, severe cognitive impairment performed well above chance on this task. Also, a significant difference was found between the mean number correct for the two groups (patient Group = 68.8, SD = 5.2; Simulating Group = 43; SD = 15.4), with Simulating subjects performing at a level much lower than that of the cognitively impaired patients. In the present sample, a cut-off score of 65 correct (90% correct) accurately classified 88% of the patient group and 90% of the simulating group. Although the sample sizes are relatively small, the results suggest that this malingering detection method is quite simple, even for significantly impaired individuals, and that even a few errors should begin to raise the suspicion of less than optimal effort or possible exaggeration of pathology. Further development of this instrument for use in malingering detection is also discussed.
Hartlage, L. C. & Williams, B. L. Independent practice and New Medico. Behavioral Screening for Exposure to Potentially Neurotoxic Chemicals. Increasing recognition of the ubiquitousness of potentially neurotoxic chemicals has increased the need for sensitive but cost-efficient screening methods for determining whether exposure to given chemicals (e.g., industrial work exposure: environmental air or water exposure) may indicate the justification for more comprehensive examination of exposed workers or residents for signs of neurotoxicity. Recent research (e.g., Kixmiller, Briggs, Hartlage, & Dean, 1990) has supported the potential of behavioral screening instruments to differentiate between neurologically impaired and normal controls with 90% accuracy, and raised the possibility that such an approach may offer promise for large scale screening of individuals exposed to suspected neurotoxins, to help determine when more comprehensive neuropsychological examination may be indicated. This study examined twenty five individuals who resided in a neighborhood where the presence of potential neurotoxins (aromatic hydrocarbons) was suspected. Each individual completed a Behavior Change Inventory, describing the presence/absence of behavioral phenomena identified as markers of neurological injury in previous research. Positive findings were reported in 21 of 25 individuals, and outside confirmatory findings suggested presence of neurotoxic insult in 23 of the 25. The overlap between Behavior Change Inventory and external confirmatory findings was 21 of 23;