We meta-analytically reviewed studies that used the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychopathology. We present weighted mean diagnostic accuracy and predictive power indices in various populations, based on 31 studies, including 61 subsamples and 4009 SIMS protocols. In addition, we provide normative data of patients, claimants, defendants, nonclinical adults, and various experimental feigners, based on 41 studies, including 125 subsamples and 4810 SIMS protocols. We conclude that the SIMS (1) is able to differentiate well between instructed feigners and honest responders; (2) generates heightened scores in groups that are known to have a raised prevalence of feigning (e.g., offenders who claim crime-related amnesia); (3) may overestimate feigning in patients who suffer from schizophrenia, intellectual disability, or psychogenic non-epileptic seizures; and (4) is fairly robust against coaching. The diagnostic power of the traditional cut scores of the SIMS (i.e., > 14 and > 16) is not so much limited by their sensitivity—which is satisfactory—but rather by their substandard specificity. This, however, can be worked around by combining the SIMS with other symptom validity measures and by raising the cut score, although the latter solution sacrifices sensitivity for specificity.
Modern symptom validity tests (SVTs) use empirical cutoffs for decision making. However, limits to the applicability of these cutoffs may arise when severe cognitive symptoms are present. The purpose of the studies presented here was to explore these limits of applicability. In Experiment 1, a group of 24 bona fide neurological patients without clinically obvious cognitive symptoms was compared to a group of 24 patients with rather severe symptoms. A comprehensive test battery was employed, which included four SVTs (the Test of Memory Malingering, TOMM, the Word Memory Test, WMT, the Bremer Symptomvalidierung, BSV, and the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test, ASTM). In Experiment 2, a group of 20 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease was compared to 14 healthy controls. Results of both studies showed that cognitive impairment may significantly interfere with SVT performance. Correlation analyses revealed dissimilar relationships between SVTs and neuropsychological test measures. Whereas TOMM and WMT correlated mainly with tests of declarative memory, the BSV correlated with tests of attention, and ASTM correlated with tests of working memory. Intercorrelations between symptom validity measures were relatively low. The published cutoffs of the TOMM would be suitable for estimating effort in patients with Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 24 or above. More research will be necessary to investigate how performance in SVTs is related to cognitive functioning in populations of severely impaired patients.
Claims of crime-related amnesia appear to be common. Using a mock crime approach, the diagnostic power of seven symptom validity instruments was investigated. Sixty participants were assigned to three conditions: responding honestly; feigning crime-related amnesia; feigning amnesia with a warning not to exaggerate. High sensitivity and specificity were obtained for the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test, and the Morel Emotional Numbing Test. Only three warned malingerers went undetected. The results demonstrate that validated instruments exist to support forensic decision making about crime-related amnesia. Yet, warning may undermine their effectiveness, even when using a multi-method approach.
During the last decades, symptom validity has become an important topic in the neuropsychological and psychiatric literature with respect to how it relates to malingering, factitious disorder, and somatoform complaints. We conducted a survey among neuropsychologists (N = 515) from six European countries (Germany, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands). We queried the respondents about the tools they used to evaluate symptom credibility in clinical and forensic assessments and other issues related to symptom validity testing (SVT). Although the majority of the respondents demonstrated technical knowledge about symptom validity, a sizeable minority of the respondents relied on outdated notions (e.g., the idea that clinicians can determine symptom credibility based on intuitive judgment). There is little consensus among neuropsychologists on how to instruct patients when they are administered SVTs and how to handle test failure. Our findings indicate that the issues regarding how to administer and communicate the SVT results to patients warrant systematic research.
Symptom validity testing is a major topic in the field of neuropsychological research, but until now, few studies focus on effort testing in children. Three symptom validity tests (SVTs), the Medical Symptom Validity Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Fifteen Item Test plus several standard neuropsychological tests were administered to 73 German-language school children from 6 to 11 years. Participants were either instructed to give full effort or to follow a malingering scenario. It could be demonstrated that, except for one child, all participants with a basic reading level of grade 2 were able to pass all administered SVTs according to established cutoffs for poor effort (i.e., earned a score higher than the cutoff). For the experimental malingerers, however, it was fairly difficult to act according to the scenario throughout the session. While they scored worse in the neuropsychological tests, all but one of them failed at least one SVT. The results support the use of SVTs in childhood age. More elaborate experimental designs and studies with bona-fide patients and suspected malingerers are needed in order to evaluate both the appropriateness of available effort tests and the capabilities of children to fake poor performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.