On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: lessons from cognitive malingering research

Bianchini, Kevin J.; Greve, Kevin W.; Glynn, Gary

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.016

Cited by 209 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms Verifiability Approach; malingering; detection of deception; physical symptoms; symptoms report Fabrication of physical symptoms in a medico-legal context burdens the health care system and ultimately may harm the care that genuine patients deserve (Bianchini, Greve, & Glynn, 2005). Thus, it is important to develop tools and strategies that can help in identifying people who fabricate ('malinger') symptoms of ill health.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Bošković

Bogaard

Vrij³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Bošković

Bogaard

Vrij³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some readers will puzzle over their claim that the objectivity of neuropsychological tests is no greater than the neurological examination; one assumes they mean that behavior in both contexts is effort-dependent, but the clarity of this statement needed to be sharpened. When commenting on pain in forensic settings, Albers and Schiffer neglected to cite Bianchini et al (2005), a seminal work on malingered pain-related disability. Anyone somewhat familiar with this literature will note this glaring omission, which, ironically, was published in a medical journal.…”

Section: The New Gold Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Gold Standard

Bush

2008

J. Inter. Neuropsych. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of Malingered Neuropsychological Deficits. Glenn J. Larrabee (Ed.). 2007. New York: Oxford University Press, 540 pp., $69.50 (HB)Developments in the area of malingering detection parallel several of Thomas Kuhn's observations concerning the nonlinear trend of progress in the history of science (Kuhn, 1962). For example, the naive assumption that traditional neuropsychological assessment procedures would straightforwardly generalize to compensation-seeking populations characterized an earlier status quo, a period Kuhn referred to as normal science. The central fallacy of this assumption was the idea that litigants and other claimants did not, as a group, behave differently from those seen in strictly clinical settings. The untenable presumption that astute clinicians were generally capable of forming accurate judgments about the validity of effort on the basis of observation was another received belief that characterized this now archaic era of practice.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, after excluding individuals who failed measures of response bias, no differences in cognitive performance were found across any of the groups. Research such as this has prompted the important work of establishing criteria for malingered pain-related disability (Bianchini, Greve, & Glynn, 2005 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%