Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain.

Symptom feigning and malingering should be evaluated in forensic contexts due to their important socio-economic consequences. Despite this, to date, there is little research in Spain that evaluates its prevalence. The aim of this study was to investigate this issue using the perception of the general population, students, and professionals of medicine and forensic psychology. Three adapted questionnaires were applied to a total of 1003 participants (61.5% women) from 5 different groups. Approximately two-thirds of participants reported knowing someone who feigned symptoms, and one-third disclosed feigning symptoms themselves in the past. Headache/migraine, neck pain, and anxious-depressive symptoms were the most commonly chosen. Experts in psychology and forensic medicine estimated a prevalence of 20 to 40% of non-credible symptom presentations in their work settings and reported not having sufficient means to assess the distorted presentation of symptoms with certainty. Professionals and laypersons alike acknowledge that non-credible symptom presentations (like feigning or malingering) are relevant in Spain and occur at a non-trivial rate, which compares with estimates in other parts of the world.

The Impact of Different Forms of Coaching on the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symtomatology (SIMS).

BACKGROUND: Psychometric symptom validity instruments (SVTs) can be vulnerable to coaching, which can negatively affect their performance. Our aim was to assess the impact that different types of coaching may have on the sensitivity of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). METHODS: A simulation design was used with 232 non-clinical adults divided into five experimental simulation conditions and 58 patients with anxious-depressive symptomatology derived from a traffic accident. All simulators received a basic scenario and, in addition, the second group was instructed on the symptomatology, the third was warned about the risk of exaggerating the presentation, the fourth received a combination of the two previous groups and the fifth received specific training on SVTs. RESULTS: The discriminative ability of the SIMS was higher in the basic and symptom information groups, and it decreased significantly in the specific training group on SVTs. CONCLUSIONS: SIMS seems not to be severely impacted by a variety of symptom coaching styles, although test coaching diminished its performance.

The English-language version of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory: a pilot analogue study with feigned head injury sequelae.

Questionnaire-based symptom validity tests (SVTs) are an indispensable diagnostic tool for evaluating the credibility of patients' claimed symptomatology, both in forensic and in clinical assessment contexts. In 2019, the comprehensive professional manual of a new SVT, the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI), was published in German. Its English-language version was first tested in the UK. This experimental analogue study investigated 20 adults simulating minor head injury symptoms and 21 honestly responding participants. The effect sizes of differences between the two groups were large, with the simulating group endorsing a higher number of pseudosymptoms, both on the SRSI and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, and scoring lower on the Reliable Digit Span than the control group. The results are similar to those obtained in previous research of different SRSI language versions, supporting the effort to validate the English-language SRSI version.

The Impact of Different Forms of Coaching on the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symtomatology (SIMS)(AU) / El Impacto de Diferentes Formas de Coaching en el Inventario Estructurado de Simulación de Síntomas (SIMS)(AU)

Background: Psychometric symptom validity instruments (SVTs) can be vulnerable to coaching, which can negatively affect their performance. Our aim was to assess the impact that different types of coaching may have on the sensitivity of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Methods: A simulation design was used with 232 non-clinical adults divided into five experimental simulation conditions and 58 patients with anxious-depressive symptomatology derived from a traffic accident. All simulators received a basic scenario and, in addition, the second group was instructed on the symptomatology, the third was warned about the risk of exaggerating the presentation, the fourth received a combination of the two previous groups and the fifth received specific training on SVTs. Results: The discriminative ability of the SIMS was higher in the basic and symptom information groups, and it decreased significantly in the specific training group on SVTs. Conclusions: SIMS seems not to be severely impacted by a variety of symptom coaching styles, although test coaching diminished its performance.(AU)

Antecedentes: Los instrumentos psicométricos de validez de síntomas (SVTs) pueden ser vulnerables a la preparación, lo que puede afectar negativamente a su rendimiento. Nuestro objetivo evaluar el impacto que diferentes tipos de preparación pueden tener en la sensibilidad del Inventario Estructurado de Simulación de Síntomas (SIMS). Método: Se utilizó un diseño de simulación con 232 adultos no clínicos divididos en cinco condiciones de simulación y 58 pacientes con sintomatología ansioso-depresiva derivada de un accidente de circulación. Todos los simuladores recibieron un escenario básico y, además, el segundo grupo fue instruido sobre la sintomatología a presentar, el tercero fue advertido sobre el riesgo de exagerar su presentación, el cuarto recibió una combinación de los dos grupos anteriores y el quinto recibió un entrenamiento específico sobre SVTs. Resultados: La capacidad discriminativa del SIMS fue más elevada en el grupo de escenario básico e información de síntomas, disminuyendo significativamente en el grupo de entrenamiento sobre SVTs. Conclusiones: El SIMS parece no verse afectado severamente por las diferentes formas de coaching, no obstante, la preparación específica sobre el test disminuye su rendimiento.(AU)

Cry for help as a root cause of poor symptom validity: A critical note.

When patients fail symptom validity tests (SVTs) and/or performance validity tests (PVTs), their self-reported symptoms and test profiles are unreliable and cannot be taken for granted. There are many well-established causes of poor symptom validity and malingering is only of them. Some authors have proposed that a cry for help may underlie poor symptom validity. In this commentary, we argue that cry for help is a (1) metaphorical concept that is (2) difficult to operationalize and, at present, (3) impossible to falsify. We conclude that clinicians or forensic experts should not invoke cry for help as an explanation for poor symptom validity. To encourage conceptual clarity, we propose a tentative framework for explaining poor symptom validity.

Symptom and Performance Validity Assessment in European Countries: an Update.

In 2013, a special issue of the Spanish journal Clínica y Salud published a review on symptom and performance validity assessment in European countries (Merten et al. in Clínica y Salud, 24(3), 129-138, 2013). At that time, developments were judged to be in their infancy in many countries, with major publication activities stemming from only four countries: Spain, The Netherlands, Great Britain, and Germany. As an introduction to a special issue of Psychological Injury and Law, this is an updated report of developments during the last 10 years. In that period of time, research activities have reached a level where it is difficult to follow all developments; some validity measures were newly developed, others were adapted for European languages, and validity assessment has found a much stronger place in real-world evaluation contexts. Next to an update from the four nations mentioned above, reports are now given from Austria, Italy, and Switzerland, too.

Symptom and performance validation in patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.

Nonauthentic symptom claims (overreporting) and invalid test results (underperformance) can regularly be expected in a forensic context, but may also occur in clinical referrals. While the applicability of symptom and performance validity tests in samples of dementia patients is well studied, the same is not true for patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A sample of 54 memory-clinic outpatients with evidence of SCD or MCI was studied. We evaluated the rate of positive results in three validity measures. A total of 7.4% of the patients showed probable negative response bias in the Word Memory Test. The rate of positive results on the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology was 14.8% while only one participant (1.9%) scored positive on the Self-Report Symptom Inventory using the standard cutoff. The two questionnaires were moderately correlated at .67. In a combined analysis of all results, five of the patients (9.3%) were judged to show evidence of probable negative response bias (or probably feigned neurocognitive impairment). In the current study, a relatively small but nontrivial rate of probable response distortions was found in a memory-clinic sample. However, it remains a methodological challenge for this kind of research to reliably distinguish between false-positive and correct-positive classifications in clinical patient groups.

Feigning memory impairment in a forced-choice task: Evidence from event-related potentials.

Strategies of malingering detection have brought about a wealth of neuropsychological studies in the last decades. However, the investigation of physiological measures to reliably differentiate between authentic and manipulated symptom presentations is still in its infancy. The present study examined event-related potentials (ERP) to identify feigned memory impairment. We tested instructed malingerers (n = 25) and control participants (n = 22) with a recognition task similar to the Test of Memory Malingering. No differences between groups were found for P1 (70-110 ms) but for N1 (120-170 ms) and P300 components, with lower amplitudes for instructed malingerers. Behavioral data showed a typical pattern of unrealistically high errors in a forced-choice recognition task and less overall recalled stimuli in instructed malingerers. We also found study-phase repetition and old/new effects in the P300, but no interactions with groups (control vs. malingering). Post-hoc analyses revealed that the P300 effect is greater when participants reported an attention-based faking strategy, as opposed to response-based malingerers and controls. The employment of physiological measures can yield additional information on the validity of test data without the need to perform additional tests.

Prevalence of overreporting on symptom validity tests in a large sample of psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatients.

Objective: Noncredible symptom claims, regularly expected in forensic contexts, may also occur in clinical and rehabilitation referral contexts. Hidden motives and secondary gain expectations may play a significant role in clinical patients. We studied the prevalence of noncredible symptom report in patients treated for minor mental disorders in an inpatient setting.Method: Five hundred and thirty seven clinical inpatients of a psychosomatic rehabilitation center were studied (mean age: 50.2 years; native speakers of German). They were referred for treatment of depression, anxiety, somatoform disorder, adjustment disorder, and neurasthenia. Results of two symptom validity tests (Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, SIMS; Self-Report Symptom Inventory, SRSI) and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) were analyzed.Results: At screening level, 34.5% and 29.8% of the patients were found to presumably overreport symptoms on the SIMS and SRSI, respectively. At the standard cut score of the SRSI (maximum false positive rate: 5%), the proportion of diagnosed overreporting was 18.8%. SIMS and SRSI pseudosymptom endorsement correlated at .73. Highly elevated depressive symptom claims with BDI-II scores above 40, found in 9.3% of the patients, were associated with elevated pseudosymptom endorsement. Moreover, extended times of sick leave and higher expectations of disability pension were associated with elevated pseudosymptom endorsement.Conclusions: The prevalence of symptom overreporting in some clinical patient groups is a serious, yet underinvestigated problem. The current estimates yielded a high prevalence of distorted, noncredible symptom claims in psychosomatic rehabilitation patients. The challenges arising to health professionals working in such settings are immense and need more consideration.

Performance validity measures in clinical patients with aphasia.

INTRODUCTION: Performance validity testing has developed into an indispensible element of neuropsychological assessment, mostly applied in forensic determinations. Its aim is to distinguish genuine patient performance from invalid test profiles. Limits to the applicability of performance validity tests (PVTs) may arise when genuine cognitive symptoms are present. METHOD: We studied the robustness of four commonly used PVTs in a sample of 15 acute patients after cerebrovascular stroke, with first manifestations of aphasia. Severity of aphasia varied from very mild to severe. Subsequent neuroimaging revealed left-hemisphere infarction for all participants. RESULTS: The Test of Memory Malingering was the only measure found to be robust against effects of genuine language impairment (one positive on Trials 1 and 2, none on Trial 3), while unacceptable false-positive rates were found for the Fifteen-Item Test (60%) and two embedded measures, Reliable Spatial Span (40%) and Reliable Digit Span (73.3%). Four patients (26.7%) scored positive on at least three of the four PVTs. CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the ongoing discussion about the risk of false-positive classifications in genuine patient populations. Misdiagnosis with severe consequences for the patient in question may arise if results of PVTs are interpreted without concurrently considering the whole context of clinical evidence.

The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is sensitive to instructed feigning, but not to genuine psychopathology in male forensic inpatients: An initial study.

Objective: The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a new symptom validity test that, unlike other symptom over-reporting measures, contains both genuine symptom and pseudosymptom scales. We tested whether its pseudosymptom scale is sensitive to genuine psychopathology and evaluated its discriminant validity in an instructed feigning experiment that relied on carefully selected forensic inpatients (n = 40). Method: We administered the SRSI twice: we instructed patients to respond honestly to the SRSI (T1) and then to exaggerate their symptoms in a convincing way (T2). Results: On T1, the pseudosymptom scale was insensitive to patients' actual psychopathology. Two patients (5%) had scores exceeding the liberal cut point (specificity = 0.95) and no patient scored above the more stringent cut point (specificity = 1.0). Also, the SRSI cut scores and ratio index discriminated well between honest (T1) and exaggerated (T2) responses (AUCs were 0.98 and 0.95, respectively). Conclusions: Given the relatively few false positives, our data suggest that the pseudosymptom scale of the SRSI is a useful measure of symptom over-reporting in forensic treatment settings.

The Modified Stroop Task Is Susceptible to Feigning: Stroop Performance and Symptom Over-endorsement in Feigned Test Anxiety.

Some researchers argue that the modified Stroop task (MST) can be employed to rule out feigning. According to these authors, modified Stroop interference effects are beyond conscious control and therefore indicative of genuine psychopathology. We examined this assumption using a within-subject design. In the first session, students (N = 22) responded honestly, while in the second session they were asked to read a vignette about test anxiety and then fake this condition. During both sessions, we administered an MST consisting of neutral, anxiety-related, and test anxiety-related words. Participants also completed the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI; Merten et al., 2016) that focuses on over-reporting of pseudosymptoms. Our feigning instructions were successful in that students succeeded in generating the typical MST effect by providing longer response latencies on anxiety related (r = 0.43) and test anxiety-related (r = 0.31) words, compared with neutral words. Furthermore, students endorsed significantly more pseudosymptoms on the SRSI (r = 0.62) in the feigning session than in the honest control condition. We conclude that the MST effect is not immune to feigning tendencies, while the SRSI provides promising results that require future research.

An International Perspective on Feigned Mental Disabilities: Conceptual Issues and Continuing Controversies.

In forensic contexts, an increased prevalence of feigned symptom presentations should be expected, although it will probably vary by the context and specific forensic issue. Forensic experts should examine this possibility proactively while maintaining a balanced perspective that actively considers clinical data for both feigning and genuine responding. Psychological measures and standardized methods developed for feigning and other response styles can facilitate these often complex determinations. The current article provides an international perspective on the issue of feigned mental disabilities. In particular, important conceptual issues are discussed, such as the categorical versus dimensional approaches to feigning, and the advisability of well-defined rather than single-point cut scores for accuracy in clinical decision-making. Salient problems of differential diagnosis include a spectrum from malingering and factitious disorders to somatoform and conversion disorders. In rendering these important diagnostic distinctions, the questions of motivations and intentions remain key. However, the establishment of motivation cannot be facilely assumed from the context. Instead, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists bear the professional burden of carefully evaluating motivation and recognizing the clinical reality that sometimes the motivation in especially challenging cases may not be fully determined. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We meta-analytically reviewed studies that used the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychopathology. We present weighted mean diagnostic accuracy and predictive power indices in various populations, based on 31 studies, including 61 subsamples and 4009 SIMS protocols. In addition, we provide normative data of patients, claimants, defendants, nonclinical adults, and various experimental feigners, based on 41 studies, including 125 subsamples and 4810 SIMS protocols. We conclude that the SIMS (1) is able to differentiate well between instructed feigners and honest responders; (2) generates heightened scores in groups that are known to have a raised prevalence of feigning (e.g., offenders who claim crime-related amnesia); (3) may overestimate feigning in patients who suffer from schizophrenia, intellectual disability, or psychogenic non-epileptic seizures; and (4) is fairly robust against coaching. The diagnostic power of the traditional cut scores of the SIMS (i.e., > 14 and > 16) is not so much limited by their sensitivity­which is satisfactory­but rather by their substandard specificity. This, however, can be worked around by combining the SIMS with other symptom validity measures and by raising the cut score, although the latter solution sacrifices sensitivity for specificity.

[The picture of malingered symptom presentation in public opinion]. / Das Bild vorgetäuschter Gesundheitsstörungen in der öffentlichen Meinung.

The views held by health experts on certain topics may differ drastically from what appears to be obvious from observations in daily living or public opinion. This is true for a number of myths which continue to haunt the literature with respect to feigned health problems. Such myths tend to ignore or to distort the results of modern research. We performed two pilot studies: first a content analysis of 67 German- and English-language articles from newspapers, magazines or internet journals, and second, a survey on the experience of, and beliefs related to, exaggeration and symptom invention in health care and forensic assessment. A non-representative sample of 15 adults from the general population was interviewed. Most of them reported their own experiences or incidents in their social networks involving feigned health problems. Base rate estimates of malingering in five prototypical contexts ranged between 46 and 67 percent of cases. While the participants showed a preference for an adaptational explanatory model of malingering (selected for about 53% of cases of malingering), journalistic sources often employed pejorative language and combat rhetoric, aiming to arouse indignation or outrage in the readership. The majority of articles were classified to adhere to a criminological explanatory model. While the pilot character of the studies limits their generalisability, the results may be suited to question the validity of some long-held expert beliefs.

Symptom validity assessment in European countries: Development and state of the art / Evaluación de la validez de los síntomas en Europa: evolución y situación actual

In the past, the practice of symptom validity assessment (SVA) in European countries was considerably lagging behind developments in North America, with the topic of malingering being largely taboo for psychological and medical professionals. This was being changed in the course of the past decade with a growing interest in methods for the assessment of negative response bias. European estimates of suboptimal test performance in civil and social forensic contexts point at base rates similar to those obtained in North America. Symptom over-reporting and underperformance in neuropsychological examinations appear to occur in a sizable proportion of patients. Although there is considerable progress in establishing SVA as an integral and indispensable part of psychological and neuropsychological assessment in some countries, others appear to lag behind. In some countries there is still enormous resistance against SVA from part of the neuropsychological and psychiatric communities (AU)

Hasta no hace mucho tiempo la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas en Europa, tanto en su vertiente científico-académica como en la práctica profesional, estaba muy por detrás de los avances que se producían en Norteamérica y particularmente la simulación se consideraba un tema tabú entre los profesionales de la Psicología y la Medicina. En la última década las cosas parecen haber cambiado, observándose un incremento en el interés por la evaluación del sesgo de respuesta negativo. Las tasas base de prevalencia obtenidas utilizando pruebas de rendimiento subóptimo en contextos civiles y forenses son similares a las obtenidas en Norteamérica. Los fenómenos de exageración de síntomas en autoinformes y rendimiento insuficiente en pruebas neuropsicológicas parecen ocurrir en semejante proporción de pacientes. Aunque se han producido avances notables en el establecimiento de la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas como una parte integral e indispensable de la evaluación psicológica y neuropsicológica en algunos países europeos, en otros sin embargo la situación es mucho más incipiente. De hecho, en algunos países sigue existiendo una gran resistencia a la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas proveniente de algunos profesionales de la psiquiatría y la neuropsicología (AU)

Swiss population-based reference data for six symptom validity tests / Datos normativos para la población suiza de seis pruebas para evaluar la validez de los síntomas

Symptom validity test (SVT) results should be resistant against sociodemographic variables. Healthy, cooperative respondents should be able to pass these tests. The purpose of the study was to collect reference data for a selection of SVTs (Medical Symptom Validity Test, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test, Emotional Numbing Test, Reliable Digit Span, Maximum Span Forward). A representative population-based sample of 100 German speaking Swiss citizens from 18 to 60 years of age was investigated. Multiple regression analyses revealed that age and verbal intelligence had an effect on various SVTs, whereas sex and education did not. The rate of positive test scores ranged from 1% (Emotional Numbing Test, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology) to 4% (Maximum Span Forward). One of the pertinent questions is if such positive results in reference or normative samples represent false positives or true positives and how to deal with the problem (AU)

Los resultados encontrados en la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas (SVT) deberían ser inmunes a las variables sociodemográficas. Así, los sujetos sanos y cooperadores deberían superar los tests de SVT. El objetivo de este estudio es obtener datos de referencia de una serie de pruebas utilizadas en la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas, en una muestra representativa de 100 ciudadanos suizos, germano-hablantes, de entre 18 y 60 años: Medical Symptom Validity Test, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test, Emotional Numbing Test, Reliable Digit Span y Maximum Span Forward. Los análisis de regresión múltiple reflejaron que las variables edad e inteligencia verbal afectaron a los resultados de varias de las pruebas, mientras que no fue así para las variables sexo y nivel educativo. La tasa de resultados positivos osciló entre el 1% (Emotional Numbing Test, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology) y el 4% (Maximum Span Forward). Una cuestión relevante que se desprende de este estudio es si dichos resultados positivos en las muestras de referencia o normativas representan sujetos falsos positivos o verdaderos positivos y cómo abordar este problema (AU)

The Third European Symposium on Symptom Validity Assessment - Facts and controversies / Tercer Simposio Europeo sobre el Estudio de la Validez de los Síntomas - Hechos y controversias

No disponible

Symptom validity and neuropsychological assessment: a survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries.

During the last decades, symptom validity has become an important topic in the neuropsychological and psychiatric literature with respect to how it relates to malingering, factitious disorder, and somatoform complaints. We conducted a survey among neuropsychologists (N = 515) from six European countries (Germany, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands). We queried the respondents about the tools they used to evaluate symptom credibility in clinical and forensic assessments and other issues related to symptom validity testing (SVT). Although the majority of the respondents demonstrated technical knowledge about symptom validity, a sizeable minority of the respondents relied on outdated notions (e.g., the idea that clinicians can determine symptom credibility based on intuitive judgment). There is little consensus among neuropsychologists on how to instruct patients when they are administered SVTs and how to handle test failure. Our findings indicate that the issues regarding how to administer and communicate the SVT results to patients warrant systematic research.

A note on cognitive dissonance and malingering.

This paper proposes that malingered symptoms may become internalized due to the self-deceptive power of cognitive dissonance. Studies demonstrating how other-deception may turn into self-deception are briefly discussed, as are clinical notions about the overlap between malingering and medically unexplained symptoms. In our view this literature showcases the relevance of cognitive dissonance for research on malingering. A cognitive dissonance perspective may help to clarify how ambiguous sensations may escalate into subjectively compelling symptoms. This perspective suggests that malingered symptom reports are more than just a complication during psychological evaluation. It may generate new research avenues and may clarify practically relevant issues.