The evaluation of malingering and other forms of deception is a cornerstone issue in forensic practice. This chapter provides both conceptual and clinical issues about the assessment of response styles. It carefully distinguishes explanatory models that address the underlying motivation for dissimulation from detection models that consider clinical methods for the identification of response styles. In particular, malingering can be unduly influenced by our misassumptions and our perspectives toward its assessment. Regarding the latter, intuitional, standard, and specialized perspectives of malingering are explored. Clinical methods for the assessment of response styles are highly dependent on their validation. Relative contributions of different research designs (simulation, known‐groups, differential‐prevalence, and bootstrapping) are reviewed. Detection strategies are examined for dissimulation with mental disorders and feigned cognitive impairment. Specialized measures (e.g., the SIRS, PDRT, and VIP) are featured for: (1) malingering and mental disorders, (2) defensiveness and mental disorders, and (3) malingering and cognitive impairment.

No abstract

Neuropsychological assessments can be completely invalidated by persons successfully feigning neurocognitive impairment. The current investigation examines via a research measure, the Test of Cognitive Abilities (TOCA), the usefulness of multiple detection strategies for the classification of neurocognitive feigning. Using a simulation design with a manipulation check and both positive and negative incentives, two groups of simulators (Cautioned and NonCautioned) were compared with brain-injured patients and nonimpaired controls. Among detection strategies, Magnitude of Error (hit rate=.94) was highly effective, while Floor Effect (hit rate=.80) and Reaction Time (hit rate=.85) were moderately effective. When presented with complex strategies, the cautioning of simulators did not improve their performances.

No abstract

No abstract