Literature DB >> 20195570

[Negative response bias and assessment of uncooperativeness in independent medical evaluations].

T Merten1.   

Abstract

The present article highlights how simple it appears to be to simulate symptoms and how often medical and forensic experts are unable or unwilling to properly identify such attempts at deception. Yet, experts usually lack a critical understanding of the limitations of their own powers of judgement. Although carefully developed and reliable approaches and procedures are available today to verify the validity of symptoms, these are often applied unwillingly. Despite sound base-rate estimates, cooperativeness in forensic evaluations is often accepted without proper critical assessment. In German speaking countries, more empirical research on civil forensic assessment would help to improve the quality of expert opinions.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20195570     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-009-1550-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  17 in total

Review 1.  [Neuropsychological assessment of malingering].

Authors:  T Merten
Journal:  Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 0.752

2.  Quantitative and qualitative analyses of clock drawing in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Mervin Blair; Andrew Kertesz; Paul McMonagle; Wilda Davidson; Nikoletta Bodi
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.892

Review 3.  [A review of methods for the assessment of symptom validity: an update 2002 to 2005].

Authors:  N Blaskewitz; T Merten
Journal:  Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 0.752

Review 4.  [Symptom and complaint validation of chronic pain in social medical evaluation. Part I: Terminological and methodological approaches].

Authors:  R Dohrenbusch
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 5.  [Symptom and complaint validation of chronic pain in social medical evaluation. Part II: Analysis levels and assessment recommendations].

Authors:  R Dohrenbusch
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.107

6.  Who can catch a liar?

Authors:  P Ekman; M O'Sullivan
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  1991-09

Review 7.  [Simulation and aggravation in ENT medical examinations. A prospective study].

Authors:  M Streppel; T Brusis
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  On being sane in insane places.

Authors:  D L Rosenhan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-01-19       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Malingering and uncooperativeness in psychiatric and psychological assessment: prevalence and effects in a German sample of claimants.

Authors:  Andreas Stevens; Eva Friedel; Gisela Mehren; Thomas Merten
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 3.222

10.  Symptom exaggeration by college adults in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disorder assessments.

Authors:  Brian K Sullivan; Kim May; Lynne Galbally
Journal:  Appl Neuropsychol       Date:  2007
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.