In a cross-validation of results from L. O. Graue et al. (2007), standard psychological assessment instruments, as well as tests of neurocognitive and psychiatric feigning, were administered under standard instructions to 24 participants diagnosed with mild mental retardation (MR) and 10 demographically matched community volunteers (CVH). A 2nd group of 25 community volunteers was instructed to malinger MR (CVM) during testing. CVM participants obtained Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.; D. Wechsler, 1997) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient scores that were significantly lower than the demographically similar CVH group but comparable to the MR group, suggesting that CVM subjects feigned cognitive impairment. On the basis of standard cutting scores from test manuals or published articles, of the 11 feigning measures administered, only the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; T. N. Tombaugh, 1996) retention trial had a specificity rate >.90 in the MR group. However, the 2nd learning trial of the TOMM, as well as a short form of the Digit Memory Test (T. J. Guilmette, K. J. Hart, A. J. Guiliano, & B. E. Leininger, 1994), approached this level of specificity, with both at .88. These results raise concerns about the specificity rates at recommended cutting scores of commonly used feigning tests in defendants with MR.

Feigned-symptom reports have become of increasing interest in recent years, in part because the results of psychological evaluations are more widely accepted in legal proceedings. This article examines several pertinent issues regarding assessment of malingering, including methodological concerns, base rates of feigning, and coaching to avoid detection. It evaluates several frequently used measures of malingering, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS). The article provides cutting scores, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive powers at various base rates of feigning. After the SIRS, the feigning scales of the MMPI-2 have the most support for malingering detection, followed by the PAI scales. Generally, all measures reviewed showed greater negative predictive power rates; thus, a two-stage sequential process for malingering detection is discussed.