Elisabeth M S Sherman1, Daniel J Slick1, Grant L Iverson2,3,4. 1. Private Practice, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Spaulding Research Institute, Charlestown, MA, USA. 4. Home Base, A Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Program, Charlestown, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Empirically informed neuropsychological opinion is critical for determining whether cognitive deficits and symptoms are legitimate, particularly in settings where there are significant external incentives for successful malingering. The Slick, Sherman, and Iversion (1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) are considered a major milestone in the field's operationalization of neurocognitive malingering and have strongly influenced the development of malingering detection methods, including serving as the criterion of malingering in the validation of several performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) (Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545-561). However, the MND criteria are long overdue for revision to address advances in the field of malingering research and to address limitations identified by experts in the field. METHOD: The MND criteria were critically reviewed, updated with reference to research on malingering, and expanded to address other forms of malingering pertinent to neuropsychological evaluation such as exaggeration of self-reported somatic and psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: The new proposed criteria simplify diagnostic categories, expand and clarify external incentives, more clearly define the role of compelling inconsistencies, address issues concerning PVTs and SVTs (i.e., number administered, false positives, and redundancy), better define the role of SVTs and of marked discrepancies indicative of malingering, and most importantly, clearly define exclusionary criteria based on the last two decades of research on malingering in neuropsychology. Lastly, the new criteria provide specifiers to better describe clinical presentations for use in neuropsychological assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed multidimensional malingering criteria that define cognitive, somatic, and psychiatric malingering for use in neuropsychological assessment are presented.
OBJECTIVES: Empirically informed neuropsychological opinion is critical for determining whether cognitive deficits and symptoms are legitimate, particularly in settings where there are significant external incentives for successful malingering. The Slick, Sherman, and Iversion (1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) are considered a major milestone in the field's operationalization of neurocognitive malingering and have strongly influenced the development of malingering detection methods, including serving as the criterion of malingering in the validation of several performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) (Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545-561). However, the MND criteria are long overdue for revision to address advances in the field of malingering research and to address limitations identified by experts in the field. METHOD: The MND criteria were critically reviewed, updated with reference to research on malingering, and expanded to address other forms of malingering pertinent to neuropsychological evaluation such as exaggeration of self-reported somatic and psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: The new proposed criteria simplify diagnostic categories, expand and clarify external incentives, more clearly define the role of compelling inconsistencies, address issues concerning PVTs and SVTs (i.e., number administered, false positives, and redundancy), better define the role of SVTs and of marked discrepancies indicative of malingering, and most importantly, clearly define exclusionary criteria based on the last two decades of research on malingering in neuropsychology. Lastly, the new criteria provide specifiers to better describe clinical presentations for use in neuropsychological assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed multidimensional malingering criteria that define cognitive, somatic, and psychiatric malingering for use in neuropsychological assessment are presented.
Authors: Nick Corriveau-Lecavalier; Eva C Alden; Nikki H Stricker; Mary M Machulda; David T Jones Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.448
Authors: Anselm B M Fuermaier; Oliver Tucha; Janneke Koerts; Lara Tucha; Johannes Thome; Frank Faltraco Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Sarah D Patrick; Lisa J Rapport; Robert J Kanser; Robin A Hanks; Jesse R Bashem Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 3.424
Authors: Thomas Merten; Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Vicki Hall; Thomas Bodner; Luciano Giromini; Johann Lehrner; Héctor González-Ordi; Pablo Santamaría; Ben Schmand; Giuseppe Di Stefano Journal: Psychol Inj Law Date: 2021-11-24