Attorneys’ Attitudes Toward Coaching Forensic Clients on the MMPI–2: Replication and Extension of Attorney Survey by Wetter and Corrigan (1995)

Abstract

In this study we replicated and extended Wetter and Corrigan's ( 1995 ) commonly cited convenience survey of attorneys and law students regarding their attitudes toward coaching litigants prior to forensic psychological testing. We conducted a target survey of attorneys practicing in specialty areas of law where it is common to enlist psychological testing as part of legal proceedings (family law, juvenile law, personal injury, criminal law, social security/disability, workman's compensation). The estimated prevalence of attorneys who endorse providing their clients with information about the presence of MMPI-2 validity scales is 53%, with a 95% confidence interval of ±7%. Compared with Wetter and Corrigan's results of 63%, this represents a slightly lower estimate of attorneys who indicate a positive attitude toward coaching their clients on the presence and purpose of validity scales. More than 70% of attorneys, in both surveys, believe they should provide general advice and preparation for psychological testing to their clients. Survey results were further analyzed as a function of attorney age, years in practice, and specialty area. Implications are discussed in relation to future research and the practice of forensic psychological evaluations.

Ethical considerations for demands for evidence in forensic examinations.

“…Spengler et al (2018) replicated Wetter & Corrigan’s finding in a subsequent study and found that over 50% of attorneys endorse informing their clients specifically about Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory validity scales. Spengler concludes that attorney coaching of test-taking examinees constitutes a serious threat to the validity of forensic psychological evaluations.…”

“…Spengler et al (2018), for example, cites Frederick (2012), who has noted that, Whenever examiners reach a conclusion that psychopathology is present, and that the presence of psychopathology is relevant to some aspect of the case, the examiner should overtly address why and how malingering has been eliminated as an explanation. Many examiners fail to do so.…”

“…Spengler et al (2018) cited research that indicates that malingerers who are educated and warned of the presence of symptom validity assessment techniques are better able to feign deficits and provide more believable responses, and ultimately elude detection, as compared to those who do not receive coaching. Spengler also indicates that providing litigants with information about validity scales appears to be associated with greater success in avoiding detection of malingering or faking good.…”

The impact of coaching on feigned psychiatric and medical symptoms: A meta-analysis using the MMPI-2.

“…As information about psychological tests become increasingly accessible, it is important to identify non-genuine responders, even when they have been coached (or have coached themselves, using publicly available information) in how to evade detection. Moreover, research has demonstrated that defense attorneys often inform their clients about the validity scales embedded in psychological tests (Spengler et al, 2018; Wetter & Corrigan, 1995). Although the nature and quality of this coaching are largely unknown (e.g., the extent of attorney’s knowledge, the amount of time spent preparing their clients, the ability of clients to understand and utilize this information), it is certainly possible that justice-involved adults who are highly motivated to feign symptoms might perform better (i.e., generate lower validity scale scores, helping evade detection), particularly when compared to non-genuine participants in research studies.…”

“…Information about psychological tests and psychiatric and medical symptomatology is easily accessible on the Internet, in textbooks, and in journals. Additionally, research has demonstrated that defense attorneys may feel compelled to warn, or even coach their clients on the disorder to be feigned and the detection strategies present in psychological measures (Lees-Haley, 1997; Rosen, 1995; Spengler et al, 2018; Wetter & Corrigan, 1995; Youngjohn, 1995). A national survey of 205 attorneys working in areas of the law in which psychological evaluations are frequent (i.e., criminal, juvenile, family, or personal injury law, social security/disability, workman’s compensation) found that most attorneys (73.2%, n = 150) supported providing general advice and information about psychological testing to their clients before a psychological evaluation (Spengler et al, 2018).…”