The current study investigated neuropsychologists' beliefs and practices with respect to assessing effort and malingering by surveying a sample of NAN professional members and fellows (n=712). The results from 188 (26.4%) returned surveys indicated that 57% of respondents frequently included measures of effort when conducting a neuropsychological evaluation. While a majority of respondents (52%) rarely or never provide a warning that effort indicators will be administered, 27% of respondents often or always provide such a warning. The five most frequently used measures of effort or response bias were the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), MMPI-2 F-K ratio, MMPI-2 FBS, Rey 15-item test, and the California Verbal Learning Test. However, the TOMM, Validity Indicator Profile, Word Memory Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and the Computerized Assessment of Response Bias were rated as most accurate for detecting suboptimal effort. These results and other findings are presented and discussed.

The present study provides implications for both researchers and clinicians. Contrary to previous studies, results indicate that depressed and anxious older adults commonly use reminiscence and therefore may be appropriate candidates for reminiscence treatments.

No abstract

While both batteries overlap regarding their assessed constructs (e.g. memory, inhibitory cognitive abilities) notable differences in their factor structures were present as well.

This research supported the hypothesis that hypnosis can be thought of as a set of potentially modifiable social-cognitive skills and attitudes. A low-interpersonal-training treatment devised by Gorassini and Spanos (1986) was compared with a treatment designed to modify not only cognitive factors but also to augment rapport with the trainer and diminish resistance to responding (high-interpersonal training). Fifty percent of the initially unhypnotizable subjects in the high-interpersonal condition tested as being highly susceptible to hypnosis (high susceptibles) at posttest on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962); 25% of the unhypnotizable subjects in the low-interpersonal condition responded comparably. Eighty-three percent of the medium-susceptibility (medium susceptibles) subjects tested as being highly susceptible at posttest in both conditions. Practice-alone control subjects' performance was stable across testings. The study was the first to demonstrate that treatment gains generalize to a battery of novel, demanding suggestions (generalization index) that have been found to differentiate highly susceptible subjects from unhypnotizable simulating subjects. The importance of rapport was evidenced by the finding that rapport ratings paralleled group differences in hypnotic responding and that rapport correlated substantially with susceptibility scores at posttest and with the generalization index. Whereas initial hypnotizability scores correlated significantly with retest susceptibility scores, initial hypnotizability failed to correlate significantly with the generalization index.