This study examined the accuracy of two measures of cognitive effort and motivation, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996) and the Validity Indicator Profile Verbal subtest (VIP-V; Frederick, 2003) using a simulation study design with psychiatric patients (n = 88) and community participants instructed to feign mental illness (n = 29). Little research has evaluated either the TOMM or the VIP in psychiatric patients, a group that may be at an increased risk of misclassification, despite the common use of these measures by forensic evaluators to assess for malingering. Specificity for the TOMM (94.2%) and the VIP-V (71.6%) were somewhat lower than the original validation samples, but Sensitivity rates were mixed: lower for the TOMM (62.1%) but higher for the VIP-V (73.1%). Additionally, VIP-V indicators were examined using Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) and stepwise discriminant analyses. The implications of these results for forensic assessment are discussed

This study examined the effectiveness of an abbreviated version of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS-A) in identifying malingered mental illness. The SIRS-A is comprised of 69 items drawn from the SIRS (R. Rogers et al. 1992, SIRS: Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.), substantially reducing the administration time. A simulation design was used with three samples; 87 psychiatric outpatients who responded honestly were compared to 29 community-dwelling adults and 24 psychiatric patients instructed to malinger psychopathology. The SIRS-A generated sensitivity comparable to or exceeding that of the SIRS normative data, but specificity was poorer; many genuinely impaired patients were misclassified as malingering. Although these findings suggest the SIRS-A may be an effective means to assess malingering in psychiatric populations, further research assessing the reasons for the elevated false positive rates is necessary.

This study describes the potential problems and possible solutions to the integration of multiple malingering measures. Multivariate prediction models, using both discriminant function analyses and regression tree approaches, are compared. Study measures, including an abbreviated version of the SIRS (SIRS-A), the MMPI-2, the TOMM and the VIP Verbal subtest, were administered to 29 community members instructed to malinger and 87 psychiatric patients instructed to respond honestly. Predictive accuracy varied substantially across measures and the correlations between tests ranged from .19 to .79. Further, 48% of the psychiatric sample were misclassified as malingering by at least one test and 46% of the malingering sample were classified as honest by at least one test; “unanimous” findings occurred in only half of the cases. Multivariate models identified the SIRS-A as the strongest predictor of malingering, but the MMPI-2, TOMM, and VIP provided significant contributions to these models. The implications of these findings for the problem of multiple, contradictory indicators in general, and the specific problems associated with clinical assessments of malingering in particular, are discussed

Clinicians have observed that psychiatric patients with correctional histories evidence attitudes and behaviors that seem adaptive in penal environments but are maladaptive in mental health settings. This study sought to assess the reliability and concurrent validity of a rating scale designed to measure correctional adaptation using a sample of 64 patients from a state psychiatric hospital. Scale ratings were obtained through structured interviews, whereas predictor variables were gleaned from chart review and self-report. The scale demonstrated good interrater reliability (ICC = .83) and acceptable internal consistency (alpha= .67). Of the variables evaluated, two were significantly correlated with Structured Assessment of Correctional Adaptation (SACA) total scores, total months sentenced to prison or jail (r = .26), and frequency of disciplinary tickets while in prison or jail (r = .31). Stepwise regression analyses revealed only the latter variable significantly predicted SACA score (R = .31), F(1, 58) = 6.27, p < .05. Clinical implications of these findings, the scale, and the construct of correctional adaptation are discussed.

No abstract