Ability of the cognitive behavioral driver's inventory to distinguish malingerers from brain-damaged subjects

Ray, Edward C.; Engum, Eric S.; Lambert, E. Warren; Bane, Ginger F.; Nash, Michael R.; Bracy, Odie L.

doi:10.1093/arclin/12.5.491

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The methodology described in Ray et al (1997) was implemented exactly except that the 53 new participants attended a "coaching" session prior to testing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the profile includes response time data, which we hypothesize to be more resistant to the effects of coaching. Ray et al (1997) found the CBDI to have 90% sensitivity for detecting student laboratory malingerers (N = 45) and 98% specificity for detecting non-malingering brain-damaged patients. However, participants in this study, though motivated by financial reward to malinger brain damage, were naive with regard to how brain-damaged individuals might perform on neuropsychological tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Undergraduate students (N = 98) attending Abnormal Psychology classes at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville volunteered to participate in this study. Forty-five of these participants were the participants from Ray et al (1997). Fifty-three were new participants included to examine the effects of coaching on CBDI performance.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research with the Cognitive Behavioral Driver's Inventory 1 (CBDI) (Ray et al, 1997) supports its ability to accurately identify malingerers. The CBDI seems to contribute something unique to neuropsychological malingering detection approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CBDI was originally normed with a brain-damaged 2 population to yield an objective profile of basic cognitive processing. Previous research (Ray et al, 1997) indicates that the CBDI is capable of discriminating between the malingering response style of normal controls and truly brain-damaged patients. Additionally, the profile includes response time data, which we hypothesize to be more resistant to the effects of coaching.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Use of the CBDI to detect malingering when malingerers do their "homework"

Borckardt

Engum

Lambert

et al. 2003

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated the ability of the Cognitive Behavioral Driver's Inventory (CBDI) to detect neuropsychological malingering [Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 12 (5) (1997) 491.], however, the present study tests if the CBDI can discern malingerers when they are "coached" on how brain-damaged patients actually perform on neuropsychological tests. Ninety-eight college student participants were given financial incentive to fake brain damage on the CBDI. Fifty-three of these subjects were "coached" and 45 were not. The coached and uncoached subjects performed indistinguishably on the CBDI. Both types of malingerers were discernable from real brain-damaged patients (99.2% accuracy area under the sensitivity-specificity curve). Further, CBDI profiles of five actual plaintiffs judged to be malingering were compared to CBDI profiles of experimental subjects. In each case, the malingering plaintiff's CBDI profile was indistinguishable from that of malingering experimental subjects and was clearly discernable from that of actual brain-damaged patients.

show abstract

“…The methodology described in Ray et al (1997) was implemented exactly except that the 53 new participants attended a "coaching" session prior to testing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of the CBDI to detect malingering when malingerers do their "homework"

Borckardt

Engum

Lambert

et al. 2003

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Malingering: Traumatic Brain Injury

Nicholson

Martelli

Causality of Psychological Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traumatic brain injury and malingering: A systematic review.

Azeredo,

Geraldo,

Moreira

et al. 2024

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The relevance of detecting feigning on neuropsychological evaluations of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients has been increasing as studies alert to the tendency to overreport symptoms of TBI for attaining different kinds of compensation. Considering this, the main goal of this study was to explore which instruments and tasks have been used to evaluate feigning of TBI-related neuropsychological deficits malingering and whether these instruments effectively detect instructed feigning of this symptomatology when compared to bona fide TBI patients. Method: A systematic review supported by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols and Cochrane guidelines was performed. Thirty-one studies focused on examining the differences between instructed malingerers and TBI patients were included. Results: The results show that the tasks used to assess malingering are diverse and not only specifically designed for this purpose. The most frequently used instrument was the Test of Memory Malingering and other instruments or tasks that involve some aspect of memory functioning. Additionally, it was also found a significant difference between the performance of the instructed malingerers and TBI patients across all the included studies, with a general tendency of malingerers to perform worse and report more symptoms than patients. Conclusion: This review highlights the effectiveness of Symptom and Performance Validity Tests in evaluating the overall credibility of reported TBIrelated symptomatology, which is increased by combining two or more instruments or tasks. Public Significance StatementTraumatic brain injuries are commonly related to a legal assessment of the credibility of the symptomatology reported by the patient. This study intends to support health care practitioners, specifically neuropsychologists, in their practices of evaluating the overall credibility of reported symptomatology following a TBI. It highlights the relevance of combining more than one instrument for increasing the accuracy of the evaluation.

show abstract

Ability of the cognitive behavioral driver's inventory to distinguish malingerers from brain-damaged subjects

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Use of the CBDI to detect malingering when malingerers do their "homework"

Use of the CBDI to detect malingering when malingerers do their "homework"

Malingering: Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury and malingering: A systematic review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About