A SIMPLE TEST FOR MONOCULAR MALINGERING.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Rey (1964) proposed a brief screening test to assess the validity of memory complaints and hypothesized that the ease of the task would mislead malingerers to perform more poorly even than persons with impaired memory due to brain injury. Lezak (1983) suggested cut-offs, but only one empirical report on Rey's task could be located in the literature. That study by Goldberg and Miller (1986) supported Lezak's cut-offs; however, the criterion groups were psychiatric and mentally retarded inpatients. In the present study, Rey's test, along with other neuropsychological tests designed to determine various types of memory dysfunction, was administered to brain-damaged (n = 18) and comparison (n = 16) groups. The results again generally supported Lezak's cut-offs.
This project examined the use of a short inventory based on the validity subscales from the MMPI-2. In Study 1, 69 subjects responded to the extracted L, F, and K items and to those items when embedded in the complete MMPI-2. Correlations between administrations were equivalent to the original test-retest reliabilities for these scales. In Study 2, 60 subjects responded to the short-form with instructions to be honest, fake good, or fake bad. The correct classification rate was 77% using the standard MMPI-2 rules of L greater than 7OT for faking good and F greater than 7OT for faking bad. Taken together, these findings suggest that the short-form may be useful alone or when combined with other questionnaires to identify potential problems in self-report.