A Critical Analysis of the MND Criteria for Feigned Cognitive Impairment: Implications for Forensic Practice and Research

Abstract

Forensic neuropsychology continues to grapple with critical determinations of response styles, including the assessment of malingering. The development of the Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) model has been highly influential for both feigning research and neuropsychological practice. In striving to be a comprehensive model of malingering, MND proposes complex criteria for ascertaining possible, probable, and definite levels. In its critical review, this article suggests the possibility of an MND bias towards the over-classification of malingering. It also examines the limits of MND research to adequately test the MND model. The conceptual and empirical limitations of MND are discussed with reference to theory and neuropsychological practice.

The SIMS Screen for Feigned Mental Disorders: the Development of Detection‐based Scales

“…In contrast to FMD, several SIMS studies (Jelicic, Ceunen, Peters, & Merckelback, ; Jelicic, Merckelbach, Candel, & Geraerts, ) of FCI are flawed, because they lack comparisons with genuine patient samples diagnosed with cognitive disorders including intellectual disability. A third study (Wisdom, Callahan, & Shaw, ) attempted a known‐groups SIMS study but used the now‐questioned Malingered Neuropsychological Deficit model for establishing malingered and non‐malingered groups (Rogers, Bender, & Johnson, ). To date, only one study has successfully examined the SIMS and FCI; Alwes et al .…”

An International Perspective on Feigned Mental Disabilities: Conceptual Issues and Continuing Controversies

“…The truth is far different. Most condemned prisoners do not malinger when evaluated for competency‐to‐be‐executed (see Rogers, Bender, & Johnson, ). Rather than facile extrapolations, evaluators need to closely consider the individual's multi‐faceted motivations.…”

“…Instead, they extrapolated from the referral issue and its potential incentive (e.g., feigned disabilities being solely incentivized by unwarranted financial compensation). The conceptual failure of this approach involves “the equation of possible incentive with actual motivation” (e.g., Rogers et al, , p. 148). The model fails because it indiscriminately assumes all examinees have the same motivation.…”

“…However, most MND feigning studies have combined the definite and probable levels, thereby not allowing this key distinction to be investigated. Moreover, the complexity of the model with potentially thousands of variables and imprecise criteria militate against its testability (see Rogers et al, ).…”

“…This marked inflation often occurs with the employment of large batteries of validity measures, and particularly of embedded performance validity indicators with a low threshold of diagnosing negative response bias. Rogers et al () pointed out that the influential MND model (Slick et al, ) defines a low threshold, in particular for the determination of probable and possible malingering. As a consequence, prevalence estimates based on criteria suggestive of possible MND and probable MND will probably yield grossly overestimated base rates.…”