Abstract

Background and Purpose. The use of machine learning (ML) models in the detection of malingering has yielded encouraging results, showing promising accuracy levels. We investigated the possible application of this methodology when trained on behavioral features, such as response time (RT) and time pressure, to identify faking behavior in self-report personality questionnaires. To do so, we reintroduced the article of Roma et al. (2018), which highlighted that RTs and time pressure are useful variables in the detection of faking; we then extended the number of participants and applied an ML analysis. Materials and Methods. The sample was composed of 175 subjects, of whom all were graduates (having completed at least 17 years of instruction), male, and Caucasian. Subjects were randomly assigned to four groups: honest speeded, faking-good speeded, honest unspeeded, and faking-good unspeeded. A software version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was administered. Results. Results indicated that ML algorithms reached very high accuracies (around 95%) in detecting malingerers when subjects are instructed to respond under time pressure. The classifiers’ performance was lower when the subjects responded with no time restriction to the MMPI-2-RF items, with accuracies ranging from 75% to 85%. Further analysis demonstrated that T-scores of validity scales are ineffective to detect fakers when participants were not under temporal pressure (accuracies 55–65%), whereas temporal features resulted to be more useful (accuracies 70–75%). By contrast, temporal features and T-scores of validity scales are equally effective in detecting fakers when subjects are under time pressure (accuracies higher than 90%). Discussion. To conclude, results demonstrated that ML techniques are extremely valuable and reach high performance in detecting fakers in self-report personality questionnaires over more the traditional psychometric techniques. Validity scales MMPI-2-RF manual criteria are very poor in identifying under-reported profiles. Moreover, temporal measures are useful tools in distinguishing honest from dishonest responders, especially in a no time pressure condition. Indeed, time pressure brings out malingerers in clearer way than does no time pressure condition.

Highlights

  • A crucial issue in medico-legal settings is the determination of whether a given symptom presentation or claimed cognitive impairment is credible, when there is an external incentive, such as compensation or secondary gain [1]

  • All participants completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2-RF without time pressure

  • The time taken by the subject to complete the first part of the MMPI-2-RF turned out to be the feature that best distinguished the two groups, as faking-good respondents were, on average, slower than honest respondents in responding to the first 112 MMPI-2-RF items

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A crucial issue in medico-legal settings is the determination of whether a given symptom presentation or claimed cognitive impairment is credible, when there is an external incentive, such as compensation or secondary gain [1]. Faking-good behaviors occur with alarming frequency in a variety of settings, from employee selection to forensic evaluation [7], making the prevention and identification of this phenomenon a field of great interest especially for practitioners and for researchers. The identification of faking-good subjects is critical in forensic settings, in which individuals can obtain some advantages by presenting themselves favorably [11]. This is true in forensic evaluations of parental skills [12] in the context of child custody hearings in which from 20% to as high as 74% of custody litigants [9] are prone to ménage a positive impression of themselves. We reintroduced the article of Roma et al (2018), which highlighted that RTs and time pressure are useful variables in the detection of faking; we extended the number of participants and applied an ML analysis

Objectives
Methods
Results
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