Malingering response styles on the memory assessment scales and symptom validity tests

John Beetar, J. Michael Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study identified malingering strategies of test performance and investigated their presence in the responses to computer-mediated versions of Rey's Dot-Counting and 15-Items tests, a forced-choice symptom validity procedure and the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS). Sixty volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to control (n = 30) or malingering (n = 30) groups. The control subjects were instructed to perform their best and the malingerers were instructed to fake a poor performance on the tests. As expected, malingering subjects scored significantly worse than control subjects on virtually all tests. Malingerers had slower response times on most tests. They also performed worse on recognition tasks in contrast to performance on recall tasks. Their response style was characterized by intentional wrong and random responding on recognition tasks. Malingerers did not show the expected worse-than-chance responding on the forced-choice symptom validity procedure. Current tests of symptom validity may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect milder forms of malingering.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-72
Number of pages16
JournalArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Malingering
Symptom Assessment
Reaction Time
Volunteers
Recognition (Psychology)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Malingering response styles on the memory assessment scales and symptom validity tests. / Beetar, John; Williams, J. Michael.

In: Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1995, p. 57-72.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2f03a1656f1543488a5ac4c239e90f55,
title = "Malingering response styles on the memory assessment scales and symptom validity tests",
abstract = "This study identified malingering strategies of test performance and investigated their presence in the responses to computer-mediated versions of Rey's Dot-Counting and 15-Items tests, a forced-choice symptom validity procedure and the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS). Sixty volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to control (n = 30) or malingering (n = 30) groups. The control subjects were instructed to perform their best and the malingerers were instructed to fake a poor performance on the tests. As expected, malingering subjects scored significantly worse than control subjects on virtually all tests. Malingerers had slower response times on most tests. They also performed worse on recognition tasks in contrast to performance on recall tasks. Their response style was characterized by intentional wrong and random responding on recognition tasks. Malingerers did not show the expected worse-than-chance responding on the forced-choice symptom validity procedure. Current tests of symptom validity may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect milder forms of malingering.",
author = "John Beetar and Williams, {J. Michael}",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1016/0887-6177(94)E0005-A",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "57--72",
journal = "Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology",
issn = "0887-6177",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Malingering response styles on the memory assessment scales and symptom validity tests

AU - Beetar, John

AU - Williams, J. Michael

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - This study identified malingering strategies of test performance and investigated their presence in the responses to computer-mediated versions of Rey's Dot-Counting and 15-Items tests, a forced-choice symptom validity procedure and the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS). Sixty volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to control (n = 30) or malingering (n = 30) groups. The control subjects were instructed to perform their best and the malingerers were instructed to fake a poor performance on the tests. As expected, malingering subjects scored significantly worse than control subjects on virtually all tests. Malingerers had slower response times on most tests. They also performed worse on recognition tasks in contrast to performance on recall tasks. Their response style was characterized by intentional wrong and random responding on recognition tasks. Malingerers did not show the expected worse-than-chance responding on the forced-choice symptom validity procedure. Current tests of symptom validity may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect milder forms of malingering.

AB - This study identified malingering strategies of test performance and investigated their presence in the responses to computer-mediated versions of Rey's Dot-Counting and 15-Items tests, a forced-choice symptom validity procedure and the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS). Sixty volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to control (n = 30) or malingering (n = 30) groups. The control subjects were instructed to perform their best and the malingerers were instructed to fake a poor performance on the tests. As expected, malingering subjects scored significantly worse than control subjects on virtually all tests. Malingerers had slower response times on most tests. They also performed worse on recognition tasks in contrast to performance on recall tasks. Their response style was characterized by intentional wrong and random responding on recognition tasks. Malingerers did not show the expected worse-than-chance responding on the forced-choice symptom validity procedure. Current tests of symptom validity may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect milder forms of malingering.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028813587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028813587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0887-6177(94)E0005-A

DO - 10.1016/0887-6177(94)E0005-A

M3 - Article

C2 - 14588450

AN - SCOPUS:0028813587

VL - 10

SP - 57

EP - 72

JO - Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

JF - Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

SN - 0887-6177

IS - 1

ER -