Screening for feigning in a civil forensic setting

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2005) and the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001) at screening for feigned psychiatric and neurocognitive symptoms in 308 individuals undergoing neuropsychiatric evaluation for workers' compensation or personal injury claims. Evaluees were assigned to probable feigning or honest groups based on results from well-validated, independent procedures. Both tests showed statistically significant discrimination between probable feigning and honest groups. Additionally, both the M-FAST and SIMS had high sensitivity and negative predictive power when discriminating probable psychiatric feigning versus honest groups, suggesting effectiveness in screening for this condition. However, neither of the procedures was as effective when applied to probable neurocognitive feigners versus honest groups, suggesting caution in their use for this purpose.

The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…In a known-groups comparison-with the SIRS serving as external criterion-of patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations, the M-FAST held its ground as firmly as the SIMS did, producing very large effect sizes (d M-FAST: 2.7, d SIMS: 3.1; Vitacco et al, 2007). Similar effects were attained in a sample of claimants of personal injury or workers' compensation (d M-FAST: 3.0, d SIMS: 2.6; Alwes et al, 2008). The M-FAST might be a good alternative to the SIMS when patients or defendants have reading difficulties.…”

“…These qualities generalize across gender (e.g., Alwes, Clark, Berry, & Granacher, 2008;Wisdom et al, 2010), race (Edens et al, 2007;Vitacco et al, 2007), and language (i.e., Dutch: Merckelbach & Smith, 2003;German: Cima et al, 2003;and Spanish: González Ordi & Santamaría Fernández, 2009). In addition, the SIMS is relatively easy to administer and interpret, and it measures a wide range of symptoms that are likely targets for feigning (see Dandachi-FitzGerald & Merckelbach, 2013).…”

DSM-5 and Malingering: a Modest Proposal

“…In contrast to this perspective, recent research has identified at least three distinct targets for false symptoms, including psychiatric, physical/somatic, and cognitive/neuropsychological feigning (Rogers 2008a, b). Evidence for at least partial independence in two of these domains was reported by Alwes et al (2008), who administered objective tests for feigned psychiatric symptoms and false neuropsychological deficits to over 300 individuals undergoing forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation. They reported that while the base rate of probable psychiatric feigning was about 7.5%, the prevalence of probable feigned neuropsychological deficit was 24.4%, and only 13 patients met criteria for probable feigning of both types of symptoms.…”

Antisocial features and “faking bad”: A critical note

“…Thus, patients who engage in faking bad may claim an abundance of atypical symptoms on specialized self-report questionnaires such as the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997 ; see for other examples Table 1), and/or they may tend to perform extremely poorly on simple cognitive tasks such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996; see for other examples Table 1). Studies administering dedicated detection instruments to criminal forensic samples have reported prevalence estimates of faking bad of up to 65% (e.g., Alwes, Clark, Berry, & Granacher, 2008;Ardolf, Denney, & Houston, 2007;Denney, 2007;McDermott, Dualan, & Scott, 2013). Such impressive statistics are not surprising, given that the stakes are often high in the forensic arena.…”