Psychometric Markers of Genuine and Feigned Neurodevelopmental Disorders in the Context of Applying for Academic Accommodations

Hurtubise, Jessica L.; Scavone, Antonette; Sagar, Sanya; Erdődi, László A.

doi:10.1007/s12207-017-9287-5

Cited by 19 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 152 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examinees with these possible conditions whose intent is to receive accommodations in educational settings (e.g. for standardized testing, such as SAT, GMAT, LSAT) or prescriptions for stimulant medications may exaggerate or feign cognitive impairment and psychological dysfunction to attain such goals (Harp et al, 2011;Harrison et al, 2021;Hurtubise et al, 2017), underscoring the importance of including SVTs and PVTs in these evaluations. Moreover, both LD and ADHD commonly have emotional concomitants, such as emotional dysregulation, anxiety, and depression (Wehmeier et al, 2010;Sobanski et al, 2010;Sj€ owall et al, 2013), necessitating SVT assessment.…”

Section: Overview Of Psychological Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Sweet

Heilbronner²,

Morgan³

et al. 2021

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

278

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Psychological Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Sweet

Heilbronner²,

Morgan³

et al. 2021

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

278

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no research has investigated this and should be examined in future studies. This is particularly important as research has shown that individuals with dyslexia can have suppressed performance on the word reading subtest of the CWIT (e.g., Hurtubise et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of the D-KEFS color–word interference test as an embedded validity indicator in psychoeducational evaluations.

Robinson¹,

Miller²,

Herring³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Previous investigations have yielded divergent results regarding the clinical utility of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) color–word interference test (CWIT) as an embedded validity indicator. The present study sought to cross-validate previously identified indicators and cutoffs in a sample of adults referred for psychoeducational testing. Method: Archival data from 257 students and community members self- referred for a psychoeducational evaluation at a university clinic in the South were analyzed. Individuals who failed 0 criterion measures were included in the credible group and individuals failing 2 or more criterion measures were included in the noncredible group. Individuals who failed only one of the criterion measures were excluded (n = 53), resulting in a final sample of 204 (credible group n = 164; noncredible group n = 40). Results: Individual conditions yielded high specificity (.88–.91) and moderate sensitivity (.30–.45) at a cutoff of ≤6. Composite indicators yielded high specificity (.94–.99) and low to moderate sensitivity (.20–.40) at previously established cutoffs. Utilizing more liberal cutoffs increased sensitivity (.28–.53) at the predictable cost to specificity (.83–.91). Conclusions: While a cutoff of ≤6 resulted in high specificity for most conditions, composite indicators appear to be more robust. Additional research is needed before recommending any specific cutoff be used in clinical practice with individuals seeking psychoeducational assessment.

show abstract

“…Fabricated claims of ADHD are a problem of special attention in particular in younger adults such as university students, with external gain expectations directed either at the prescription of psychostimulants or at academic accommodations. Consequently, this problem has drawn much attention in the research literature of the last decade (e.g., Bryant et al, 2018; Fuermaier et al, 2021; Hurtubise et al, 2017; Marshall et al, 2016; Martin & Schroeder, 2020; Tucha et al, 2015). The participants of our survey appeared to be aware of this problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laypeople's prevalence estimates of malingering: Survey data from the Netherlands.

Merten¹,

Tucha²,

Giger³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Noncredible symptom claims not only occur in a sizable number of forensic cases, but also in clinical contexts. Health providers and forensic experts are confronted with the question of whether individual symptom claims are genuine, grossly exaggerated, or even invented. We investigated laypeoples’ prevalence estimates, their attitude and beliefs about malingering. Method: Extending a survey format from a previous Swiss study, we analyzed responses from 975 adult Dutch nationals who responded to an online structured interview on their assumptions and attitudes about malingering (in Dutch language sense of intentional symptom fabrication with an external goal). Results: Participants estimated that a sizeable minority of cases in different prototypical situations feigned symptoms to achieve external goals. They estimated that malingering most commonly occurs in offenders seeking diminished criminal responsibility. One in every seven participants admitted having malingered themselves, and many were confronted with malingering by family members, work colleagues, friends, or neighbors. Although the majority morally condemned malingering, a sizable minority admitted that malingering might be an option for themselves. Participants generally favored an adaptational and a criminological explanatory model of malingering (35% each). Conclusions: The high prevalence of noncredible symptom claims suspected by laypersons in diverse clinical and legal contexts corresponds to base rate estimates derived from numerous other surveys and group studies. Myths perpetuated by some clinical and forensic workers are seriously challenged by laypersons’ opinion, based on their very personal social perceptions of the reality, and on their admission of having feigned symptoms in the past themselves.

show abstract

Psychometric Markers of Genuine and Feigned Neurodevelopmental Disorders in the Context of Applying for Academic Accommodations

Cited by 19 publications

References 152 publications

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Utility of the D-KEFS color–word interference test as an embedded validity indicator in psychoeducational evaluations.

Laypeople's prevalence estimates of malingering: Survey data from the Netherlands.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About