Significant motivations and incentives exist for young-adult students to seek a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). With ADHD information readily accessible on the Internet, today's students are likely to be symptom educated prior to evaluation. This may result in false-positive diagnoses, particularly when students are motivated to convey symptoms. We evaluated the utility of ADHD symptom checklists, neurocognitive tests, and measures initially developed to detect feigned neurocognitive or psychiatric dysfunction (symptom validity tests [SVTs]). The performance of 31 undergraduates financially motivated and coached about ADHD via Internet-derived information was compared to that of 29 ADHD undergraduates following medication washout and 14 students not endorsing symptomatology. Results indicated malingerers readily produced ADHD-consistent profiles. Symptom checklists, including the ADHD Rating Scale and Conners's Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self-Rating Form: Long, were particularly susceptible to faking. Conners's Continuous Performance Test-II findings appeared more related to motivation than condition. Promising results were seen with all cognitive SVTs (Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM], Digit Memory Test, Letter Memory Test, and Nonverbal-Medical Symptom Validity Test), particularly TOMM Trial 1 when scored using Trial 2 criteria. All SVTs demonstrated very high specificity for the ADHD condition and moderate sensitivity to faking, which translated into high positive predictive values at rising base rates of feigning. Combining 2 or more failures resulted in only modest declines in sensitivity but robust specificity. Results point to the need for a thorough evaluation of history, cognitive and emotional functioning, and the consideration of exaggerated symptomatology in the diagnosis of ADHD.

The present meta-analysis provides the first meta-analysis of research on stand-alone neurocognitive feigning tests since publication of the preceding paper by Vickery, Berry, Inman, Harris & Orey (2001). Studies of dedicated neurocognitive feigning test performances in adults appearing in published or unpublished (theses and dissertations) sources through October 2010 were reviewed and subjected to stringent inclusion criteria to maximize the validity of results. Neurocognitive feigning tests were included only if at least three contrasts of criterion-supported honest patient groups and feigners were available. Tests that met criteria for review included the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, used as an anchor to compare Vickery and colleagues' results; Test of Memory Malingering, Word Memory Test, Letter Memory Test, and Medical Symptom Validity Test. Effect sizes and test parameters at published cut scores were compiled and compared. Results reflected large effect sizes for all measures (mean d = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48-1.63). Mean specificity was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.85-0.94). Mean sensitivity was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.63-0.75). Several moderators of effect size were identified, with certain manipulations resulting in a weakening of effect size. Unexpectedly, warning simulators to feign believably increased effect sizes.

A recent Supreme Court decision--Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)--prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded (MR) defendants may have raised the attractiveness of feigning this condition in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, very few published studies have addressed the detection of feigned MR. The present report compared results from tests of intelligence, psychiatric feigning, and neurocognitive faking in a group of 26 mild MR participants (MR) and 25 demographically matched community volunteers asked to feign MR (CVM). Results showed that the CVM suppressed their IQ scores to approximate closely the level of MR participants. WAIS-III and psychiatric malingering measures were relatively ineffective at discriminating feigned from genuine MR. Although neurocognitive malingering tests were more accurate, their reduced specificity in MR participants was of potential concern. Revised cutting scores, set to maintain a Specificity rate of about .95 in MR clients, were identified, although they require cross-validation. Overall, these results suggest that new cutting scores will likely need to be validated to detect feigned MR using current malingering instruments.

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.

Compensation-seeking neuropsychological evaluees were classified into Honest (HON; n = 37) or Probable Cognitive Feigning (PCF; n = 53) groups based on results from the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--3rd ed. The groups were generally comparable on demographic, background, and injury severity characteristics, although HON TBI participants were significantly more likely to have a documented loss of consciousness, whereas PCF participants were significantly more likely to be currently on disability. PCF participants scored significantly lower on many neuropsychological test, particularly of memory, as well as higher on most MMPI-2 clinical scales. The PCF group also had significantly higher scores on multiple indices of feigning of psychiatric symptoms. Results from the Letter Memory Test (LMT) were significantly lower for the PCF group, and using the recommended cutting score, specificity was .984, whereas sensitivity was .640, suggesting adequate performance on cross-validation.