The current study examined which types of risk communication messages and combinations of messages judges find most helpful in making decisions about risk for future violence. Seventy six judges from three Southern states responded to a mail survey asking them to rate the probative value of categorical, frequency, and probabilistic risk communication messages. An additional 40 judges completed the survey at a judicial conference. Approximately half of the judges made probative ratings for a high risk patient, while the remaining judges made ratings for a lower risk patient. Overall, the judges gave higher probative value ratings to the categorical risk message and reported that a combination of categorical and numerical messages would be most useful. Judges in the high risk condition were significantly more likely than those assigned to the low risk condition to rate the risk message as probative, regardless of the way in which it was communicated.

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.