Base rates of invalidity when patients undergoing routine clinical evaluations have social security disability as an external incentive

Schroeder, Ryan W.; Clark, H; Martin, Paige

doi:10.1080/13854046.2021.1895322

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are similar to those of Mittenberg et al ( 2002 ), Greve et al ( 2009 ), and Chafetz ( 2011 ), who found a base rate in NA samples of 7 to 31%, 32.5%, 36%, and 38.5%, respectively. However, our estimates are lower than those of other studies, such as the 46% of Schroeder et al ( 2021 ) from a sample of North America social security disability claimants and the 35 to 55% of Hall and Kalus ( 2021 ) from a sample of UK litigant population. Yet, our results are considerably higher than the 9.9% UK base rate estimated by expert psychologists (Cartwright et al, 2019 ), 5 to 10% base rate of Australian psychologists doing medicolegal work (Yoxall et al, 2010 ), and the estimated 13% among Australian neuropsychologists (Sullivan et al 2006 ).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Similarly, Chafetz ( 2011 ) examined the performance of 161 social security disability claimants, finding that 38.5% were classified as either probable or definite malingerers (15% were classified as definite malingerers). However, these base rates are lower than other base rate estimates for North America, such as the 46% in the 242 social security disability claimants of Schroeder et al ( 2021 ), and considerably higher than the 9.9% UK base rate estimated by expert psychologists (Cartwright et al, 2019 ), the 5–10% base rate of Australian psychologists doing medicolegal work (Yoxall et al, 2010 ), and the 13% among Australian neuropsychologists (Sullivan et al, 2006 ). In Spain, Santamaría et al ( 2013 ) found that professionals estimated the prevalence rate to be close to 50% in cases of chronic pain disorders, with whiplash injury having the highest incidence, followed by fibromyalgia, chronic cervicalgia, chronic low back pain, and affective and emotional disorders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 61%

“…A considerable amount of research focuses on establishing prevalence estimates of feigning across cultures and reference contexts (e.g., Dandachi-FitzGerald et al, 2020 ; Santamaría et al, 2013 ; Schroeder et al, 2021 ). Researchers in the field of symptom validity assessment make exceptional efforts to establish the prevalence of feigning across cultures, but the available estimates of the prevalence of feigning/malingering differ significantly and it is difficult to arrive at a precise range due to the great heterogeneity of published studies (Merten & Merckelbach, 2020 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain

Puente-López

Pina

López-López

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Symptom feigning and malingering should be evaluated in forensic contexts due to their important socio-economic consequences. Despite this, to date, there is little research in Spain that evaluates its prevalence. The aim of this study was to investigate this issue using the perception of the general population, students, and professionals of medicine and forensic psychology. Three adapted questionnaires were applied to a total of 1003 participants (61.5% women) from 5 different groups. Approximately two-thirds of participants reported knowing someone who feigned symptoms, and one-third disclosed feigning symptoms themselves in the past. Headache/migraine, neck pain, and anxious–depressive symptoms were the most commonly chosen. Experts in psychology and forensic medicine estimated a prevalence of 20 to 40% of non-credible symptom presentations in their work settings and reported not having sufficient means to assess the distorted presentation of symptoms with certainty. Professionals and laypersons alike acknowledge that non-credible symptom presentations (like feigning or malingering) are relevant in Spain and occur at a non-trivial rate, which compares with estimates in other parts of the world.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain

Puente-López

Pina

López-López

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies indicate base rates of invalid test performance to be in the range of 25 to 46% among patients with external incentives (Martin & Schroeder, 2020;Schroeder et al, 2021). In a recent study, Mestdagh et al (2019) found that a rate of 54.1% patients with claimed solvent-induced chronic encephalopathy failed on at least one of two PVTs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Reaction Times as an Embedded Measure of Performance Validity: a Study with a Sample of Austrian Early Retirement Claimants

Czornik

Seidl

Tavakoli

et al. 2021

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among embedded measures of performance validity, reaction time parameters appear to be less common. However, their potential may be underestimated. In the German-speaking countries, reaction time is often examined using the Alertness subtest of the Test of Attention Performance (TAP). Several previous studies have examined its suitability for validity assessment. The current study was conceived to examine a variety of reaction time parameters of the TAP Alertness subtest with a sample of 266 Austrian civil forensic patients. Classification results from the Word Memory Test (WMT) were used as an external indicator to distinguish between valid and invalid symptom presentations. Results demonstrated that the WMT fail group performed worse in reaction time as well as its intraindividual variation across trials when compared to the WMT pass group. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed areas under the curve of .775–.804. Logistic regression models indicated the parameter intraindividual variation of motor reaction time with warning sound as being the best predictor for invalid test performance. Suggested cut scores yielded a sensitivity of .62 and a specificity of .90, or .45 and .95, respectively, when the accepted false-positive rate was set lower. The results encourage the use of the Alertness subtest as an embedded measure of performance validity.

show abstract

“…Narrowing the base rate refers to adjusting one's base rate estimate in the presence of a valid and reliable indicator (e.g., possible involvement in litigation).The surveyed 5% rate of invalid performance was based on general dementia evaluations. It is well established that the presence of external incentives (e.g., eligibility for disability services) elevate base rates of performance invalidity (Schroeder et al, 2021). Additional considerations, such as the presence of somatoform disorders, oppositional attitudes, and psychiatric/mental health issues may inflate base rates of invalid performance (Martin & Schroeder, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of performance validity tests in dementia evaluations: The role of base rates.

Gaudet¹,

Castelluccio²,

Gold³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance validity tests (PVTs) are frequently used to detect invalid performance on cognitive testing. The inclusion of PVTs in cognitive test batteries is commonplace irrespective of the condition of interest. However, base rates of invalid performance vary across clinical populations. Research accounting for base rates of invalid performance in varying clinical populations and PVT classification accuracy rates are not commonly synthesized. To address this gap, the present study examined the clinical utility of select PVTs used with older adults presenting for dementia evaluations. We computed posterior probabilities of invalid performance for the select PVTs using an estimated 5% base rate of invalid performance based on prior published studies. Posterior probabilities of invalid performance based on a PVT failure (i.e., invalid performance identified as invalid) ranged from 7.3% to 60.3% across PVTs; posterior probabilities of a false positive (i.e., valid performance identified as invalid) ranged from 39.7% to 92.7%. Conversely, posterior probabilities of a true negative (i.e., valid performance identified as valid) ranged from 95.7% to 99.3%; posterior probabilities of a false negative (i.e., invalid performance identified as valid) ranged from 0.7% to 4.3%. Results call into question the utility of PVTs in dementia evaluations. Consequently, the use of PVTs in dementia evaluations is likely to erroneously identify valid test data as invalid (i.e., false-positive error) at a frequency that exceeds the estimated 5% base rate of invalid performance. Further research examining correlates of invalid performance among older adults will clarify base rate estimates and potentially enhance the utility of PVTs.

show abstract

Base rates of invalidity when patients undergoing routine clinical evaluations have social security disability as an external incentive

Cited by 15 publications

References 35 publications

Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain

Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain

Motor Reaction Times as an Embedded Measure of Performance Validity: a Study with a Sample of Austrian Early Retirement Claimants

Limitations of performance validity tests in dementia evaluations: The role of base rates.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About