Citation

Ju D, Varney NR. Appl. Neuropsychol. 2000; 7(4): 201-207.

Affiliation

University Counseling Service, University of Iowa, 3223 Westlawn, Iowa City, IA 52242-1100, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1207/S15324826AN0704_1

PMID

11296682

Abstract

In the past few years, there have been many simulation studies on the efficacy of symptom validation tests. These typically involved nonclinical participants. This line of research was limited because the impact of the experience of head injury was not examined. Researchers failed to understand whether individuals with head injury would feign cognitive deficits on symptom validation tests as well as their nonclinical counterparts did. This study was designed to investigate simulation of memory deficits among the head injured on the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT; Binder, 1993). Head injury patients, with and without corroborated brain damage, and a group of controls were involved to resemble clinical populations. Results showed that false negative rates ranged from 67% to 84% when participants were asked to feign memory difficulty on the PDRT. Head injury patients, regardless of corroboration of brain damage, were equally capable of feigning memory deficits on the PDRT as their nonclinical counterparts. Findings suggest that the additive value of symptom validity tests, such as the PDRT, can be limited for their use as malingering tests.

Language: en