Abstract

In the context of legal damage evaluations, evaluees may exaggerate or simulate symptoms in an attempt to obtain greater economic compensation. To date, practitioners and researchers have focused on detecting malingering behavior as an exclusively unitary construct. However, we argue that there are two types of inconsistent behavior that speak to possible malingering-accentuating (i.e., exaggerating symptoms that are actually experienced) and simulating (i.e., fabricating symptoms entirely)-each with its own unique attributes; thus, it is necessary to distinguish between them. The aim of the present study was to identify objective indicators to differentiate symptom accentuators from symptom producers and consistent participants. We analyzed the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology scales and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form validity scales of 132 individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood who had undergone assessment for psychiatric/psychological damage. The results indicated that the SIMS Total Score, Neurologic Impairment and Low Intelligence scales and the MMPI-2-RF Infrequent Responses (F-r) and Response Bias (RBS) scales successfully discriminated among symptom accentuators, symptom producers, and consistent participants. Machine learning analysis was used to identify the most efficient parameter for classifying these three groups, recognizing the SIMS Total Score as the best indicator.

Highlights

  • Psychic damage can be defined as an alteration of psychic integrity [1]

  • The results for Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) showed that the three research groups (Consistent Participants, Symptom Accentuators, Symptom Producers) obtained significantly different scores on the Neurological Impairment (NI), Low Intelligence (LI), and Total Score (TS) scales

  • Our results showed that the NI scale was useful in discriminating between feigners and consistent respondents, and in differentiating between the two subtypes of inconsistent behavior that speak to possible malingering: accentuators’ scores (M = 2.61) were quite close to the cut-off value recommended by Smith and Burger ( 2), whereas symptom producers obtained significantly higher scores (M = 3.92)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Psychic damage (or psychological/ psychiatric damage) can be defined as an alteration of psychic integrity (i.e., a qualitative and quantitative change in psychic elements, including primary mental abilities, affectivity, defense mechanisms, and mood) [1]. It is considered biological damage, it is not limited to medically assessable pathology; rather, it involves both objective and subjective elements, linked to an individual’s unique personal history [2]. In the medico-legal context, disorders associated with depression and anxiety, such as chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, are the most frequently simulated [4], at a rate of over 50% [5]

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call