Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Malingering”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Current issues in the diagnosis and management of malingering.

Malingering is a diagnosis that is frequently avoided by physicians. When there is a claim of symptoms or diseases that either are exaggerated or do not exist, the diagnosis of malingering should be entertained. Malingering is associated with a conscious intent to deceive in order to obtain a known gain. Psychoanalytical, criteria-based (DSM-IV) and 'adaptational' models have been advanced to explain malingering. The differential diagnosis of malingering includes factitious disorder, the somatoform disorders, the dissociative disorders, and specific medical conditions without somatoform disorder. Upon consideration of the differential diagnosis, confirmation of the suspicion of malingering is still required in order to make the diagnosis. Confirmation can be achieved by observation or by inferential methods. Observation can be employed with controlled environment observation or with covert, 'real-world' surveillance; inference may involve primary and/or secondary source information. It may be concluded that a greater attempt should be made to identify this diagnosis, as the cost of malingering to society is considerable.

Diagnosis, Differential↗

Novel cases: malingering by animal proxy.

Malingering to obtain medications of abuse is well documented in the general medical setting. However, we have found no cases previously reported of such malingering in a veterinary setting. We report five cases submitted by veterinarians in which clients (pet owners) are strongly suspected or confirmed to have been engaging in malingering to obtain controlled medications for their personal use. Cases bear a striking resemblance to malingering in the general medical setting for drugs to abuse. We propose that veterinarians, like their medical counterparts, are potential targets of malingering by their clients for drugs of abuse. Because of their familiarity with this condition, psychiatrists may have a role in training veterinarians to recognize malingering on the part of their human clients. In addition, psychiatrists may benefit from familiarizing themselves with novel forms of malingering, such as are presented in this case series.

Adult↗

A review of ocular malingering and hysteria for the flight surgeon.

Malingering is the conscious creation of a functional defect or denial of a true defect. Positive malingering is the former, and negative malingering is the latter. Hysteria is similar to malingering except that it is unconscious. Ocular malingering is common among draft evaders. The flight surgeon or military ophthalmologist will more commonly see the negative malingerer in peacetime because of the high physical standards for flying. Wartime creates a sudden shift towards positive malingering, however, for obvious reasons. This paper carefully defines the distinctions between malingering, hysteria, and true disease consistent with the defect claimed. It also provides a systematic approach to history, examination, and special testing of a possible ocular malingerer/hysteric. A number of common ocular complaints are considered separately, including decreased visual acuity, visual field defects, night vision defects, color vision defects, ocular muscle defects, automutilatory defects, opacification of transparent media, blepharospasm, intraocular disease, and asthenopia.

Aerospace Medicine↗

Malingering of PTSD: forensic and diagnostic considerations, characteristics of malingerers and clinical presentations.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to study the detection of individuals malingering posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in criminal and civil situations. METHOD: A brief history of PTSD and its rise to prominence in legal circles are discussed. The characteristics of individuals who malinger and particularly those who fake PTSD are discussed. Diagnostic dilemmas inherent to the condition, such as the definition of a traumatic exposure, what constitutes a PTSD flashback and the potential for normal symptom exaggeration, are explored. RESULTS: The typical presentation of malingered symptoms is presented to help clinicians detect commonly seen malingering patterns. Suggestions for interview techniques, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test values and sources of collateral information to help detect malingering are reviewed. CONCLUSION: The paper concludes with a review of the typical presentations of malingered PTSD symptoms and a reminder that physicians need to distinguish legitimate symptoms from faked or embellished presentations.

Diagnosis, Differential↗

The detection of malingered post-traumatic stress disorder.

The detection of malingered PTSD is made particularly challenging by the subjective nature of PTSD criteria and requires a thorough, systematic approach. The psychiatrist must gather and analyze evidence from the evaluation, clinical records, psychologic testing, third parties, and other sources. Although some individuals may malinger PTSD to avoid criminal sanctions, the most common motivation for malingering PTSD is financial gain. Clinical nuances may help distinguish genuine from malingered PTSD. The psychiatrist should be aware of the differences observed between civilian and combat-related PTSD. Although special effort is required, the psychiatrist bears considerable responsibility to assist society in differentiating true PTSD from malingering.Undetected malingering is not limited simply to fraudulent monetary awards, but can involve misuse of limited mental health resources, leading to negative consequences for the mental health system. As Burkett aptly notes, malingered combat PTSD cases "take time, energy, and financial resources away from treating true combat veterans with PTSD. And real combat vets who truly need help end up in group therapy with phonies, get disgusted, and quit treatment".

Combat Disorders↗

Prevalence of malingering in inpatient suicide ideators and attempters.

The purpose of the present study was to ascertain the prevalence of malingering by inpatients admitted to an urban hospital for suicidal ideation or attempt. Fifty-eight consecutively hospitalized suicidal patients were asked to participate, and of these 40 (70%) agreed to do so. Each patient was given an anonymous questionnaire asking whether they had lied or purposely exaggerated suicidal ideation to gain admission. A psychiatrist and masters-level psychologist, both blind to the patient responses, then rated each patient for suspicion of malingering. Each patient was also administered the MMPI-2 F, L, and K validity scales. Four patients (10%) indicated they had malingered and indicated that external incentives had motivated them to feign either suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt. None of the MMPI-2 validity scales correlated with self-reported malingering. The clinicians detected malingerers with 100% sensitivity, but the specificity rates were only 58% for the psychiatrist and 32% for the psychologist. The results indicate that some inpatients malinger about the extent of their suicidal intentions. The data demonstrate the difficulty inherent in detecting malingering by clinical interviewing and psychological testing.

Adult↗

Utility of the trail making test in the assessment of malingering in a sample of mild traumatic brain injury litigants.

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most commonly administered tests in neuropsychological assessments. It has been shown to be a valid indicator of brain damage due to traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as a number of other neuropathological conditions. TMT error and ratio scores have been suggested as possible markers of malingering. The present study examined the utility of various TMT scores as malingering measures in 94 TBI litigants. Litigants were divided into those suspected of (n = 27) and those not suspected of malingering (n = 67) based on scores obtained on the Test of Memory Malingering and/or the Rey 15-Item Test. TMT errors did not discriminate between suspected and nonsuspected malingerers; however, the overall level of performance on the TMT was suppressed in suspected malingerers. The TMT ratio score was significantly lower in litigants suspected of malingering, although the clinical utility of this ratio is minimal. Results of the present study suggest using caution when interpreting TMT scores as markers of malingering in TBI litigants.

Adult↗

Specificity of malingering detection strategies in older adults using the CVLT and WCST.

Strategies for the detection of possible malingering have largely taken two forms. First is the development and validation of domain-specific measures of malingering designed specifically for the detection of malingering (e.g., Test Of Memory Malingering, Word Memory Test, and Word Completion Memory Test). The second has been the development and evaluation of performance patterns and cutoff scores applicable to commonly used neuropsychological instruments. Two such instruments that have been examined are the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) and the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT). While several studies propose possible cutoff scores and actuarial judgement strategies for these tests, the specificity of these strategies within older, nonimpaired adults has not been established. Without proper evaluation of potential age-related effects within these strategies, the actual utility of the strategies within suspected malingerers who are older adults is unknown. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the specificity of the proposed strategies for detecting possible malingering with the WCST and the CVLT in a sample of older, community-dwelling, nonimpaired adults. The results suggest that the currently existing WCST formulas may have limited utility for the detection of malingering with older adults while the CVLT strategies do appear to have potential clinical utility. The potential of these formulas for use with older adults is discussed.

Aged↗

Diagnostic blocks: a truth serum for malingering.

Malingering is not a diagnosis. It is a behavior for which there are no established diagnostic criteria. Guidelines have been published according to which malingering might be suspected, but those guidelines do not discriminate between patients who are malingering and ones with genuine sources of chronic pain. In such patients, malingering cannot be proven, but it can be refuted if a genuine source of pain can be established. In patients with no apparent cause of pain, the source of that pain can be established using controlled diagnostic blocks. A positive response to diagnostic blocks demonstrates that the complaint of pain is genuine and, by implication, refutes any contention that the patient is malingering. When positive, diagnostic blocks provide objective data by which disputes based on opinion can be resolved, as to whether a patient is malingering or not. Negative responses do not exclude a genuine complaint of pain, for patients may have a source of pain that is not amenable to testing with diagnostic blocks. Diagnostic blocks have proved particularly useful in the investigation of spinal pain for which the cause is not evident on conventional medical imaging. They can also confirm or refute purported mechanisms of certain clinical features in complex regional pain syndromes.

Diagnosis, Differential↗

An emotional Stroop effect to malingering-related words.

This study was designed to elicit an emotional Stroop effect in simulators of malingering. Student participants (mostly women) either did or did not feign mild brain trauma. A modified Stroop test was administered, using neutral and "malingering" words. Controls showed no difference on malingering versus neutral words; simulators performed significantly worse on malingering words. Further research must specify the best method of administration to elicit a malingering Stroop effect and assess the additional discriminative power it may provide when combined with other malingering-detection strategies.

Adult↗

Malingering on the RAVLT: Part II. Detection strategies.

In this study two potential indices of malingering derived from the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) were evaluated as a means of detecting malingering. These were indices based on discrepancies between recognition-recall scores and differences in the serial position effect (SPE). Sixty undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: malingerers, malingerers-with-warning, warning-only, and control. Incentives were offered to participants in all conditions to encourage faking in a believable manner (malingering conditions), or to encourage optimal performance (nonmalingering conditions). Two predictions were made. First, it was predicted that the serial position curve for subjects in malingering conditions would show suppression of primacy effects relative to nonmalingerers. Second, it was predicted that recall would be better than recognition for subjects in malingering conditions compared to nonmalingering conditions. The utility of these indices was also explored in the context of providing subjects' with warnings regarding use of methods to detect malingering. Results indicated that both indices failed to reliably differentiate between malingerers and nonmalingerers, and warnings failed to modify participants' behaviour.

Clinical Trial↗

Discriminating between simulated malingering and closed head injury on the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised.

We tested the hypothesis that malingering is distinguished by poorer performance on recognition relative to recall tasks by evaluating the ability of discriminant functions to distinguish between 89 subjects simulating malingering and 44 subjects with a history of closed head injury (CHI) on the Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised (WMS-R). Functions with good accuracy in discriminating between simulated malingerers and controls in prior studies did not have adequate specificity when applied to the CHI group. A newly derived discriminant function achieved overall classification accuracy of 79% for the malingering versus CHI groups on cross-validation, with 79% sensitivity (true positives for malingering) and 80% specificity (true negatives for closed head injured). A complex performance pattern on seven WMS-R subtests distinguished malingering subjects from those with CHI, but did not support the recognition versus recall hypothesis. The malingering pattern involved: (a) power performance on two relatively (but inconspicuously) easy tasks dependent on immediate recall (Visual Reproduction I and Visual Memory Span); (b) better performance on two relatively (but inconspicuously) easy tasks dependent on immediate recall (Visual Paired Associates I and Digit Span); (c) poorer performance on two relatively difficult delayed tasks (Logical Memory II and Visual Paired Associates II); and (d) better performance on another difficult task involving delayed recall (Visual Reproduction II).

Journal Article↗

The meaning of malingering data: further applications of Bayes' theorem.

A previous Behavioral Sciences and the Law article (Mossman & Hart, 1996) asserted that information from malingering tests is best conceptualized using Bayes' theorem, and that courts therefore deserve Bayesian interpretations when mental health professionals present evidence about malingering. Mossman and Hart gave several examples of estimated Bayesian posterior probabilities, but they did not systematically address how one constructs confidence intervals for these estimates. This article explains how the usually imperfect nature of humanly created diagnostic tests mandates Bayesian interpretations of test results, and describes methods for generating confidence intervals for posterior probabilities. Sample calculations show that Bayesian reasoning is quite feasible and would not require investigators to expend unusual efforts when constructing and validating malingering instruments. Bayesian interpretations most accurately capture what malingering tests do: provide information that alters one's beliefs about the likelihood of malingering.

Attitude to Health↗

An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: a known-groups comparison.

The assessment of malingering is a fundamental component of forensic evaluations that should be considered with each referral. In systematizing the evaluation of malingering, one option is the standardized administration of screens as an initial step. The current study assessed the effectiveness of three common screening measures: the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2004), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation Scale (ECST-R ATP; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004). Using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) as the external criterion, 100 patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations were categorized as either probable malingerers (n=21) or nonmalingerers (n=79). Each malingering scale produced robust effect sizes in this known-groups comparison. Results are discussed in relation to the comprehensive assessment of malingering within a forensic context.

Adolescent↗

Detecting malingering: a survey of experts' practices.

A survey addressing practices of 'expert' neuropsychologists in handling financial compensation claim or personal injury litigation cases was carried out. Potential participants were identified by publication history. Responses were obtained from 24 out of the 39 neuropsychologists who were surveyed. Approximately 79% of the respondents reported using at least one specialized technique for detecting malingering in every litigant assessment. Half stated that they always give specialized tests at the beginning of the assessment. The Rey 15-Item test and the Test of Memory Malingering were the most frequently reported measures. Respondents also reported frequent use of 'malingering' indexes from standard neuropsychological tests. Reported base-rates varied, but the majority of respondents indicated that at least 10% of the litigants they assessed in the last year were definitely malingering. Respondents were split on the practice of routinely giving warnings at the outset of assessments that suboptimal performance may be detected. However, when the client's motivational status was suspect, more than half (58.3%) altered their assessment routine at least on some occasions, by encouraging good effort (70.8%) or administering additional SVTs. A minority directly confronted or warned clients (25%), terminated the examination earlier than planned (16.6%), or contacted the referring attorney immediately (29.2%). Respondents almost always stated some opinion regarding indicators of invalidity in written reports (95%). However, 41.7% rarely used the term 'malingering' and 12.5% never used the term. Most respondents (>80%) instead stated that the test results are invalid, inconsistent with the severity of the injury or indicative of exaggeration.

Disability Evaluation↗

The validity of the letter memory test as a measure of memory malingering: robustness to coaching.

The letter memory test (LMT) is a computerized forced-choice test of malingering detection including two face valid difficulty manipulations: increase in target stimulus length and increase of response foils. Prior research suggests the LMT shows promise as a malingering detection measure. In the present study, the utility of the LMT in the identification of malingering was further explored, using a counterbalanced design in a simulated malingering sample. Prior work was extended by assessing the robustness of the LMT to coaching and assessing the effectiveness of an additional scoring method, utilizing the face valid difficulty manipulations. Results were consistent with prior research on the LMT, with the standard cutoff score yielding high indices of accuracy. The LMT showed no order effects and was superior to the 15-item test in accuracy indices. Both the standard LMT score and the proposed score based on difficulty manipulations were relatively robust to coaching. Overall, findings indicate the LMT is a viable contender among measures of memory malingering.

Case-Control Studies↗

Detection and management of malingering in people presenting for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: methods, obstacles, and recommendations.

Malingering of symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has become a growing concern, particularly in healthcare and other settings in which the diagnosis is associated with financial incentives such as disability benefits. Although there is a steadily increasing body of research on methods for detecting PTSD malingering, little has been written on the assessment and practical management of malingering in treatment settings. The present article addresses this important issue, including a review of the methods, obstacles, and possible solutions for assessing PTSD malingering, along with suggestions for managing cases in which malingering is strongly suspected.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy↗

Malingering and retrograde amnesia: the historic case of the Collegno amnesic.

Assessment of feigned cognitive disorders is an important field of neuropsychology because of its applications to forensic settings. Strategies for detecting malingering in amnesia are available for anterograde amnesia. Less attention has been given to malingering in retrograde amnesia. The case of the 'Smemorato di Collegno' (The Collegno Amnesic) is probably the most famous case of malingered retrograde amnesia ever known in Italy. In 1926, a man who appeared to have lost all his autobiographical memories and identity spent nearly a year in the Collegno asylum of Turin without a name. He was later initially identified as Giulio Canella, Director of the 'Scuola Normale di Verona' who had disappeared during the war in 1916. He was suspected of later identified as being Mario Bruneri, a petty crook from Turin who played the part of an amnesic whose retrograde memory gradually returned. A lengthy investigation was required before this conclusion was reached. Several clinicians and renowned academics evaluated the case, but only Alfredo Coppola, diagnosed "malingered retrograde amnesia" using a method that was extremely innovative for the times. The aim of the present paper is to review the original cognitive evaluation and the strategies used for malingering detection in the "Collegno case". The outcome of the case is then discussed in the light of present-day forensic neuropsychology and the level of advancement of mental examination achieved in the 1920s in Europe is highlighted.

Amnesia, Retrograde↗