Investigating the M‐FAST: psychometric properties and utility to detect diagnostic specific malingering

Abstract

This study examined the ability of the M-FAST to differentiate a group of undergraduate students simulating one of four DSM-IV diagnoses (n = 190; schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder) and a clinical comparison sample drawn from previous M-FAST studies comprising individuals with the same diagnosis (n = 142). Across all diagnostic conditions, the simulators obtained higher M-FAST total scores than the clinical comparisons, and the rare combinations scale was equal or superior to the total score at differentiating the groups. The M-FAST was most efficient at distinguishing feigned from bona fide schizophrenia. Although the internal consistency of the total score was high (alpha = 0.88), inter-item correlations were lower than values reported in previous research. Lastly, given the importance of base rate considerations in the evaluation of diagnostic instruments, it was notable that the M-FAST was able to identify malingerers even at relatively low base rates.

A Practical Guide to Conducting VA Compensation and Pension Exams for PTSD and Other Mental Disorders

“…The MMPI-2 has been found to better discriminate between genuine and feigning groups in simulation designs (Eakin et al, 2006;Lange et al, 2010); therefore, it is the preferred instrument. Examiners who use the PAI might consider supplementing it with a feigning-specific screener such as the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001;Guy, Kwartner, & Miller, 2006) or the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2005). If you use the SIMS, be sure to use the higher cutoff score recommended in research by Wisdom, Challahan, and Shaw (2010).…”

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Assessing Response Style and Malingering

“…Guriel-Tennant and Fremouw (2006) found that trauma history did not aid PTSD simulation, and in contrast to the earlier study, coaching decreased detection rates from 0.84 to 0.52. In the only study that examined discrimination of feigners from valid PTSD patients (noncompensation context, passed SIRS and MMPI-2 validity indicators), the M-FAST's standard cutoff score of six generated a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.85 separating student simulators (Guy et al 2006).…”

Malingering and PTSD: Detecting malingering and war related PTSD by Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST)

“…Guriel et al [19] showed M-FAST and TSI detected 90% of malingering to the PTSD and Guy et al [15] suggested that malingering people scored higher in the M-FAST than clinical participants (with Schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar and acute traumatic stress disorders). Jackson et al [16] indicated that the ≥6 score is a cutoff point for detecting malingering people in forensic assessment in prisons.…”

“…Strunk et al [14] showed that M-FAST correctly identified 78% of coached malingerers. Guriel et al [14] showed that M-FAST and Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) identified 90% cases of malingering of PTSD and Guy et al [15] showed that malingers got more score than clinical participants in M-FAST (with Schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar and acute traumatic stress disorders). Furthermore, Jackson and colleagues [16] indicated that the ≥6 score in forensic assessment is a cutoff point for detected malingers in prisons.…”