Detecting simulated memory impairment: Comparison of the rey fifteen-item test and the hiscock forced-choice procedure

Guilmette, Thomas J.; Hart, Kathleen J.; Giuliano, Anthony J.; Leininger, Bruce E.

doi:10.1080/13854049408404135

Cited by 89 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Morgan (1991) found that 20% of patients with mild to severe memory impairment failed the FIT at a cutoff score of nine, leading some researchers to advocate for a cutoff of seven items or below to identify malingering (Meyer & Deitsch, 1995). Even at this lower cutoff, the FIT has been criticized as being relatively insensitive and nonspecific to malingering (Guilmette, Hart, Giuliano, & Leininger, 1994;Schretlen, Brandt, Krafft, & van Gorp, 1991;Vallabhajosula & van Gorp, 2001). Yet the FIT remains frequently used in evaluations of malingered neurocognitive deficits (Slick, Tan, Strauss, & Hultsch, 2004).…”

Section: Fifteen Item Test (Fit)mentioning

confidence: 93%

Do tests of malingering concur? Concordance among malingering measures

Farkas

Rosenfeld

Robbins

et al. 2006

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malingering test accuracy is increasingly a major issue in psychology and law. Integrating results across measures might offset limitations of a single test, but the practical benefits of using several tests depend on the extent to which they misclassify the same individuals. Data from 66 evaluatees were used to assess the degree of overlap and consistency of classification among several commonly used malingering instruments. Although correlative data indicated that measures were highly redundant even across symptom domains, classification accuracy analyses revealed that findings based on conjunctions of these scales may not overlap to the degree that the correlations might suggest.

show abstract

Section: Fifteen Item Test (Fit)mentioning

confidence: 93%

Do tests of malingering concur? Concordance among malingering measures

Farkas

Rosenfeld

Robbins

et al. 2006

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies that reported elevated FPRs for the RMT among putatively bona ®de neuropsychological patients assumed they were motivated to perform at their best level (e.g., Guilmette et al, 1994;Lee et al, 1992;Schretlen et al, 1991). Violations of this assumption always result in spuriously in¯ated FPRs.…”

Section: Potential Flaws In Cgv Researchmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Morgan (1991) and Schretlen, Brandt, Krafft, and Van Gorp (1991) found instances in which persons with severe memory de®cits, or other serious neurological disorders, failed to complete at least nine items on the RMT. Guilmette, Hart, Giuliano, and Leininger (1994) reported that a cutoff of seven or less incorrectly identi®ed 8 of 20 moderately to severely brain damaged individuals and 6 of 20 depressed psychiatric inpatients (FPR .30 to .40). Greiffenstein, Baker, and Gola (1996) concluded that a cut score of nine or less demonstrated a TPR of .64 and FPR of .26 for 55 traumatically brain injured individuals and 90 minor head injury persons claiming permanent severe disability.…”

Section: Rey 15-item Memory Test (Rmt)mentioning

confidence: 98%

Mixed group validation: a method to address the limitations of criterion group validation in research on malingering detection*

Frederick¹

2000

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed group validation (MGV) is offered as an alternative to criterion group validation (CGV) to estimate the true positive and false positive rates of tests and other diagnostic signs. CGV requires perfect confidence about each research participant's status with respect to the presence or absence of pathology. MGV determines diagnostic efficiencies based on group data; knowing an individual's status with respect to pathology is not required. MGV can use relatively weak indicators to validate better diagnostic signs, whereas CGV requires perfect diagnostic signs to avoid error in computing true positive and false positive rates. The process of MGV is explained, and a computer simulation demonstrates the soundness of the procedure. MGV of the Rey 15-Item Memory Test (Rey, 1958) for 723 pre-trial criminal defendants resulted in higher estimates of true positive rates and lower estimates of false positive rates as compared with prior research conducted with CGV. The author demonstrates how MGV addresses all the criticisms Rogers (1997b) outlined for differential prevalence designs in malingering detection research.

show abstract

“…These data strongly suggest that a performance of less than 75% correct (54 or fewer correct) is not the result of organic cerebral dysfunction, but is likely secondary to exaggeration of symptomatology. (p. 67) Guilmette et aL (1994) shortened the Hiscock into an abbreviated 36-item version that, using a 90% correct cutoff score (33 or more) correctly classified 17 of 20 simulators, 20 of 20 brain-damaged subjects, and 19 of 20 depressed psychiatric in-patients. Slick et aL (1994) created the Victoria Revision of the HDMT, which includes 48 items via computer.…”

Section: Hiscock Digit Memory Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical guidelines in the use of symptom validity and other psychological tests to measure malingering and symptom exaggeration in traumatic brain injury cases

Etcoff

Kampfer

1996

Neuropsychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detection of malingering or symptom exaggeration has become an essential component in forensic neuropsychological evaluations, particularly in cases involving personal injury claims. Symptom Validity Tests refer to those measures that can be utilized to detect test performance that is so poor that it is below the level of probability, often times even among brain-damaged populations. This article outlines legal standards for expert testimony in regard to forensic neuropsychological personal injury evaluations. The article provides an outline of specific Symptom Validity Tests and Indicators, and reviews literature supporting test sensitivity and validity. In addition, the use of symptom checklists and questionnaires is discussed, as well as the appropriate use of Symptom Validity Tests and Indicators to establish the presence or absence of malingering or symptom exaggeration.

show abstract

Detecting simulated memory impairment: Comparison of the rey fifteen-item test and the hiscock forced-choice procedure

Cited by 89 publications

References 22 publications

Do tests of malingering concur? Concordance among malingering measures

Do tests of malingering concur? Concordance among malingering measures

Mixed group validation: a method to address the limitations of criterion group validation in research on malingering detection*

Practical guidelines in the use of symptom validity and other psychological tests to measure malingering and symptom exaggeration in traumatic brain injury cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About