On the Interpretation of Below-Chance Responding in Forced-Choice Tests

Frederick, Richard I.; Speed, F. M.

doi:10.1177/1073191106292009

Cited by 50 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A statistically significantly below-chance result on a forced-choice SVT is definitive evidence of intentional exaggeration of cognitive deficits (Bianchini, Mathias, & Greve, 2001;Frederick & Speed, 2007). This has been recognized in both published systems for diagnosing malingering Slick, Sherman, & Iverson, 1999).…”

Section: Malingering Classification Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the Detection of Malingered Pain-Related Disability in Chronic Pain

Bianchini

Aguerrevere

Guise

et al. 2014

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI) are both popular clinical screening instruments in general orthopedic, rheumatologic, and neurosurgical clinics and are useful for identifying pain patients whose physical symptom presentations and disability may be non-organic. Previous studies found both to accurately detect malingered pain presentations; however, the generalizability of these results is not clear. This study used a criterion groups validation design (retrospective cohort of patients with chronic pain, n = 328) with a simulator group (college students, n = 98) to determine the accuracy of the MSPQ and PDI in detecting Malingered Pain Related Disability. Patients were grouped based on independent psychometric evidence of MPRD. Results showed that MSPQ and PDI scores were not associated with objective medical pathology. However, they accurately differentiated Not-MPRD from MPRD cases. Diagnostic statistics associated with a range of scores are presented for application to individual cases. Data from this study can inform the clinical management of chronic pain patients by screening for psychological overlay and malingering, thus alerting clinicians to the possible presence of psychosocial obstacles to effective treatment and triggering further psychological assessment and/or treatment.

show abstract

Section: Malingering Classification Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the Detection of Malingered Pain-Related Disability in Chronic Pain

Bianchini

Aguerrevere

Guise

et al. 2014

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A statistically significantly below chance result on a forced-choice SVT is definitive evidence of intentional exaggeration of cognitive deficits (Bianchini et al, 2001a;Frederick & Speed, 2007;Reynolds, 1998). This has been recognized in both published systems for diagnosing malingering Slick, Sherman, & Iverson, 1999).…”

Section: Pdrt In Chronic Pain 855mentioning

confidence: 96%

Detecting Malingered Pain-Related Disability: Classification Accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test

Greve

Bianchini

Etherton

et al. 2009

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used criterion groups validation to determine the classification accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT) at a range of cutting scores in chronic pain patients undergoing psychological evaluation (n = 318), college student simulators (n = 29), and patients with brain damage (n = 120). PDRT scores decreased and failure rates increased as a function of greater independent evidence of intentional underperformance. There were no differences between patients classified as malingering and college student simulators. The PDRT detected from 33% to nearly 60% of malingering chronic pain patients, depending on the cutoff used. False positive error rates ranged from 3% to 6%. Scores higher than the original cutoffs may be interpreted as indicating negative response bias in patients with pain, increasing the usefulness and facilitating the clinical application of the PDRT in the detection of malingering in pain.

show abstract

“…Concomitantly, using the binomial distribution to determine the probability of scores falling below random chance has been used indiscriminately by some clinicians to state unequivocally that an examinee is malingering when secondary gain was present. Although scores below chance can be considered compelling evidence of intentional deception on the part of the examinee, a recent paper by Frederick and Speed (2007) suggests that this line of reasoning can be misleading and propose a method for determining whether the total number of correct responses on an SVT is legitimate evidence of intentional deception or possibly careless guessing.…”

Section: Cautions In Interpreting Svtsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Developing a Symptom Validity Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Application of the binomial distribution

Morel¹,

Shepherd²

2008

Journal of Anxiety Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Interpretation of Below-Chance Responding in Forced-Choice Tests

Cited by 50 publications

References 50 publications

Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the Detection of Malingered Pain-Related Disability in Chronic Pain

Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the Detection of Malingered Pain-Related Disability in Chronic Pain

Detecting Malingered Pain-Related Disability: Classification Accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test

Developing a Symptom Validity Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Application of the binomial distribution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About