Abstract
Objective In this paper, we analyzed differences between uncoached, symptom-coached, and test-coached simulators regarding strategies of feigning mild head injuries. Method Healthy undergraduates (n = 67 in the first study; n = 48 in the second study), randomized into three simulator groups, were assessed with four experimental memory tests. In the first study, tests were administered face-to-face, while in the second study, the procedure was adapted for online testing. Results Online simulators showed a different approach to testing than face-to-face participants (U tests < 920, p < .05). Nevertheless, both samples favored strategies like memory loss, error making, concentration difficulties, and slow responding. Except for slow responding and concentration difficulties, the favorite strategies correlated with validity indicators. In the first study, test-coached simulators (m = 4.58–5.68, SD = 2.2–3) used strategies less than uncoached participants (m = 5.25–5.88, SD = 2.26–2.84). In the second study, test-coached participants (m = 3.8–5.6, SD = 1.51–2.2) employed strategies less than uncoached (m = 6.21–7.29, SD = 1.25–1.85) and symptom-coached participants (m = 6.14–6.79, SD = 1.69–2.76). Discussion Similarities and differences between online and face-to-face assessments are discussed. Recommendations to associate heterogeneous indicators for detecting feigning strategies are issued.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
