Citation

Young G. Psychol. Inj. Law 2015; 8(3): 188-199.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s12207-015-9232-4

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Psychological injuries concern conditions produced by negligent actions, such as in motor vehicle accidents, and that result in claims for damages, such as in tort. In the psychological injury context, malingering refers to fabrications or gross exaggerations of psychological conditions for purposes of monetary gain. As much as the diagnoses that might result in such cases (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD), chronic pain, persistent postconcussive syndrome (PPCS) after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are considered contentious, so is the attribution of malingering and related negative response biases. This paper reviews the literature since the publication of the book by Young (2014) on the topic of malingering in the context of psychological injury cases. In particular, it examines the recent literature on the definition of malingering, and its prevalence or base rate, in the forensic disability and related context. The paper reviews not only recent articles, but also the 2015 Institute of Medicine book on the topic of use of validity tests in social security disability examinations. It examines the seminal work of Larrabee, Millis, and Meyers (2009) on the prevalence of malingering and indicates its consistencies. The paper concludes that (a) the definition of malingering can be improved and (b) the prevalence of malingering according to the recent research, as well as in Young's 2014 book on the topic, is less than Larrabee's catchy phrase that is prominent in some circles in the literature of 40 ± 10 %. More likely, it gravitates around 10 to 20 % so that, instead of 40 ± 10 %, the most appropriate percentage of malingering and related negative response biases in the disability and forensic context, as well as the clinical context, might be 15 ± 15 %, in general, with the percentage possibly being more than that for cases such as mTBI involving PPCS. These findings are pertinent to practice and for court.

Language: en