Apparent Effect of Type of Compensation Seeking (Disability Versus Litigation) on Performance Validity Test Scores may be due to Other Factors

Abstract

Neuropsychologists use performance validity tests (PVTs; Larrabee, 2012) to ensure that results of testing are reflective of the test taker’s true neurocognitive ability, and their use is recommended in all compensation-seeking settings. However, whether the type of compensation context (e.g., personal injury litigation versus disability seeking) impacts the nature and extent of neurocognitive symptom feigning has not been adequately investigated. PVT performance was compared in an archival data set of noncredible individuals in either a personal injury litigation (n = 163) or a disability-seeking context (n = 201). Individuals were deemed noncredible based on meeting Slick, Sherman, and Iverson’s (1999) criteria including failure on at least two PVTs and a lack of congruency between their low cognitive scores and normal function in activities of daily living (ADLs). In general, disability seekers tended to perform in a less sophisticated manner than did litigants (i.e., they failed more indicators and did so more extensively). Upon further investigation, these differences were in part accounted for by type of diagnoses feigned; those seeking compensation for mental health diagnoses were more likely to feign or exaggerate a wide variety of cognitive deficits, whereas those with claimed medical diagnoses (i.e., traumatic brain injury) were more targeted in their attempts to feign and/or exaggerate neurocognitive compromise.