The Experts below are selected from a list of 9384 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kevin W Greve - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico legal context
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2009Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L CurtisAbstract:Abstract Greve KW, Ord JS, Bianchini KJ, Curtis KL. Prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico-legal context. Objective To provide an empirical estimate of the prevalence of malingered disability in patients with chronic pain who have financial incentive to appear disabled. Design Retrospective review of cases. Setting A private neuropsychologic clinic in a southeastern metropolitan area. Participants Consecutive patients (N=508) referred for psychologic evaluation related to chronic pain over a 10-year period (1995–2005). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of Malingering was examined using 2 published clinical diagnostic systems (Malingered Pain-Related Disability and Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction) as well as statistical estimates based on well validated indicators of Malingering. Results The prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain with financial incentive is between 20% and 50% depending on the diagnostic system used and the statistical model's underlying assumptions. Some factors associated with the medico-legal context such as the jurisdiction of a workers' compensation claim or attorney representation were associated with slightly higher Malingering rates. Conclusions Malingering is present in a sizable minority of patients with pain seen for potentially compensable injuries. However, not all excess pain-related disability is a result of Malingering. It is important not to diagnose Malingering reflexively on the basis of limited or unreliable findings. A diagnosis of Malingering should be explicitly based on a formal diagnostic system.
-
detecting Malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain a comparison of three forced choice symptom validity tests
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2008Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L Curtis, Adrianne BrennanAbstract:Individual and joint Malingering detection accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Word Memory Test (WMT) was examined in traumatic brain injury (TBI; 43 non-Malingering, 27 Malingering) and chronic pain (CP; 42 non-Malingering, 58 Malingering) using a known-groups design. At published cutoffs, the PDRT and TOMM were very specific but failed to detect about 50% of malingerers; the WMT was sensitive but prone to false positive errors. ROC analyses demonstrated comparable accuracy across all three tests. Joint classification accuracy was superior to that of the individual tests. Clinical and research implications are discussed.
-
compensation and Malingering in traumatic brain injury a dose response relationship
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2006Co-Authors: Kevin J Bianchini, Kelly L Curtis, Kevin W GreveAbstract:The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a dose-response relationship between potential monetary compensation and failure on psychological indicators of Malingering in traumatic brain injury. 332 traumatic brain injury patients were divided into three groups based on incentive to perform poorly on neuropsychological testing: no incentive; limited incentive as provided by State law; high incentive as provided by Federal law. The rate of failure on five well-validated Malingering indicators across these groups was examined. Cases handled under Federal workers compensation laws showed considerably higher rates of failure and diagnosable Malingering than cases handled under State law. The findings indicate that monetary compensation associated with workers compensation claims is a major motive for exaggeration and Malingering of problems attributed to work-related brain injuries. The clinician's index of suspicion regarding exaggeration and Malingering of symptoms and deficits should be much hig...
-
on the diagnosis of malingered pain related disability lessons from cognitive Malingering research
The Spine Journal, 2005Co-Authors: Kevin J Bianchini, Kevin W Greve, Gary GlynnAbstract:Abstract Background context Pain-related disability is a complex phenomenon. Malingering is a potential factor in the management of patients with pain. Methodological problems and inappropriate expectations regarding diagnostic accuracy have hampered the study of Malingering detection in pain. In contrast, the study of cognitive Malingering in neuropsychology has led to the development of many highly accurate and reliable detection techniques. This paper applies the methods and logic that have been successful for identifying cognitive Malingering to the problem of Malingering in patients with pain. Purpose Outline the logic of a research methodology for studying Malingering detection in pain and introduce a system for the diagnosis of Malingering in pain. Study design Literature review and conceptual synthesis. Methods Examination of the research methodology and diagnostic scheme used in the study of cognitive Malingering; adaptation of these methods to the problem of Malingering in pain. Results Lessons derived from the study of cognitive Malingering were used to generate recommendations to enhance research into detection and diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability. A comprehensive, multidimensional system for diagnosing Malingering in pain-related disability was proposed. Conclusions Pain-related disability is a multifaceted phenomenon, therefore Malingering can occur in different and sometimes multiple dimensions. It is presently possible to accurately detect and diagnose Malingering in some patients with pain. More work is needed for some detection techniques to be appropriately calibrated in pain populations. This work must focus on controlling the false positive error rate.
Gerald Young - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Malingering in forensic disability related assessments prevalence 15 15
Psychological Injury and Law, 2015Co-Authors: Gerald YoungAbstract: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.
-
Malingering in Forensic Disability-Related Assessments: Prevalence 15 ± 15 %
Psychological Injury and Law, 2015Co-Authors: Gerald YoungAbstract: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.
Kevin J Bianchini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico legal context
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2009Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L CurtisAbstract:Abstract Greve KW, Ord JS, Bianchini KJ, Curtis KL. Prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico-legal context. Objective To provide an empirical estimate of the prevalence of malingered disability in patients with chronic pain who have financial incentive to appear disabled. Design Retrospective review of cases. Setting A private neuropsychologic clinic in a southeastern metropolitan area. Participants Consecutive patients (N=508) referred for psychologic evaluation related to chronic pain over a 10-year period (1995–2005). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of Malingering was examined using 2 published clinical diagnostic systems (Malingered Pain-Related Disability and Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction) as well as statistical estimates based on well validated indicators of Malingering. Results The prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain with financial incentive is between 20% and 50% depending on the diagnostic system used and the statistical model's underlying assumptions. Some factors associated with the medico-legal context such as the jurisdiction of a workers' compensation claim or attorney representation were associated with slightly higher Malingering rates. Conclusions Malingering is present in a sizable minority of patients with pain seen for potentially compensable injuries. However, not all excess pain-related disability is a result of Malingering. It is important not to diagnose Malingering reflexively on the basis of limited or unreliable findings. A diagnosis of Malingering should be explicitly based on a formal diagnostic system.
-
detecting Malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain a comparison of three forced choice symptom validity tests
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2008Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L Curtis, Adrianne BrennanAbstract:Individual and joint Malingering detection accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Word Memory Test (WMT) was examined in traumatic brain injury (TBI; 43 non-Malingering, 27 Malingering) and chronic pain (CP; 42 non-Malingering, 58 Malingering) using a known-groups design. At published cutoffs, the PDRT and TOMM were very specific but failed to detect about 50% of malingerers; the WMT was sensitive but prone to false positive errors. ROC analyses demonstrated comparable accuracy across all three tests. Joint classification accuracy was superior to that of the individual tests. Clinical and research implications are discussed.
-
compensation and Malingering in traumatic brain injury a dose response relationship
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2006Co-Authors: Kevin J Bianchini, Kelly L Curtis, Kevin W GreveAbstract:The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a dose-response relationship between potential monetary compensation and failure on psychological indicators of Malingering in traumatic brain injury. 332 traumatic brain injury patients were divided into three groups based on incentive to perform poorly on neuropsychological testing: no incentive; limited incentive as provided by State law; high incentive as provided by Federal law. The rate of failure on five well-validated Malingering indicators across these groups was examined. Cases handled under Federal workers compensation laws showed considerably higher rates of failure and diagnosable Malingering than cases handled under State law. The findings indicate that monetary compensation associated with workers compensation claims is a major motive for exaggeration and Malingering of problems attributed to work-related brain injuries. The clinician's index of suspicion regarding exaggeration and Malingering of symptoms and deficits should be much hig...
-
on the diagnosis of malingered pain related disability lessons from cognitive Malingering research
The Spine Journal, 2005Co-Authors: Kevin J Bianchini, Kevin W Greve, Gary GlynnAbstract:Abstract Background context Pain-related disability is a complex phenomenon. Malingering is a potential factor in the management of patients with pain. Methodological problems and inappropriate expectations regarding diagnostic accuracy have hampered the study of Malingering detection in pain. In contrast, the study of cognitive Malingering in neuropsychology has led to the development of many highly accurate and reliable detection techniques. This paper applies the methods and logic that have been successful for identifying cognitive Malingering to the problem of Malingering in patients with pain. Purpose Outline the logic of a research methodology for studying Malingering detection in pain and introduce a system for the diagnosis of Malingering in pain. Study design Literature review and conceptual synthesis. Methods Examination of the research methodology and diagnostic scheme used in the study of cognitive Malingering; adaptation of these methods to the problem of Malingering in pain. Results Lessons derived from the study of cognitive Malingering were used to generate recommendations to enhance research into detection and diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability. A comprehensive, multidimensional system for diagnosing Malingering in pain-related disability was proposed. Conclusions Pain-related disability is a multifaceted phenomenon, therefore Malingering can occur in different and sometimes multiple dimensions. It is presently possible to accurately detect and diagnose Malingering in some patients with pain. More work is needed for some detection techniques to be appropriately calibrated in pain populations. This work must focus on controlling the false positive error rate.
Stephen W. Gilliland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reducing Injuries, Malingering, and Workers’ Compensation Costs by Implementing Overt Integrity Testing
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2020Co-Authors: Dylan A. Cooper, Jerel E. Slaughter, Stephen W. GillilandAbstract:Workers’ compensation costs are a substantial expense for employers. Given mixed results of training and job redesign interventions designed to reduce accidents leading to claims, organizations may wish to reduce these costs by screening job applicants with integrity tests. Building on theories of workplace safety and Malingering (i.e., faking or exaggerating injuries for personal gain), we argue that overt integrity tests predict workers’ compensation claims through both workplace injuries and Malingering. Analyses of archival data from three organizations (study 1) found screening job applicants reduced workers’ compensation claim rates and related costs, demonstrating a return on investment of 734% in one sample and 866% in another. In a three-wave survey of working adults (study 2), integrity test scores related directly to Malingering, and indirectly to workplace injuries through motivation to work safely and compliance with safety rules. Analyses of three common dimensions of overt integrity tests (substance abuse, aggression, and theft) found theft scores directly related to Malingering, and indirectly related to injuries through lower safety compliance. Substance abuse scores were related to higher rates of injury through lower safety motivation and compliance. Aggression scores were not related to Malingering or injuries. We conclude that screening job applicants with overt integrity tests can be a cost-effective way to reduce unnecessary workplace injuries, Malingering, and the related workers’ compensation claims.
Kelly L Curtis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico legal context
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2009Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L CurtisAbstract:Abstract Greve KW, Ord JS, Bianchini KJ, Curtis KL. Prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico-legal context. Objective To provide an empirical estimate of the prevalence of malingered disability in patients with chronic pain who have financial incentive to appear disabled. Design Retrospective review of cases. Setting A private neuropsychologic clinic in a southeastern metropolitan area. Participants Consecutive patients (N=508) referred for psychologic evaluation related to chronic pain over a 10-year period (1995–2005). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of Malingering was examined using 2 published clinical diagnostic systems (Malingered Pain-Related Disability and Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction) as well as statistical estimates based on well validated indicators of Malingering. Results The prevalence of Malingering in patients with chronic pain with financial incentive is between 20% and 50% depending on the diagnostic system used and the statistical model's underlying assumptions. Some factors associated with the medico-legal context such as the jurisdiction of a workers' compensation claim or attorney representation were associated with slightly higher Malingering rates. Conclusions Malingering is present in a sizable minority of patients with pain seen for potentially compensable injuries. However, not all excess pain-related disability is a result of Malingering. It is important not to diagnose Malingering reflexively on the basis of limited or unreliable findings. A diagnosis of Malingering should be explicitly based on a formal diagnostic system.
-
detecting Malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain a comparison of three forced choice symptom validity tests
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2008Co-Authors: Kevin W Greve, Kevin J Bianchini, Jonathan S Ord, Kelly L Curtis, Adrianne BrennanAbstract:Individual and joint Malingering detection accuracy of the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Word Memory Test (WMT) was examined in traumatic brain injury (TBI; 43 non-Malingering, 27 Malingering) and chronic pain (CP; 42 non-Malingering, 58 Malingering) using a known-groups design. At published cutoffs, the PDRT and TOMM were very specific but failed to detect about 50% of malingerers; the WMT was sensitive but prone to false positive errors. ROC analyses demonstrated comparable accuracy across all three tests. Joint classification accuracy was superior to that of the individual tests. Clinical and research implications are discussed.
-
compensation and Malingering in traumatic brain injury a dose response relationship
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2006Co-Authors: Kevin J Bianchini, Kelly L Curtis, Kevin W GreveAbstract:The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a dose-response relationship between potential monetary compensation and failure on psychological indicators of Malingering in traumatic brain injury. 332 traumatic brain injury patients were divided into three groups based on incentive to perform poorly on neuropsychological testing: no incentive; limited incentive as provided by State law; high incentive as provided by Federal law. The rate of failure on five well-validated Malingering indicators across these groups was examined. Cases handled under Federal workers compensation laws showed considerably higher rates of failure and diagnosable Malingering than cases handled under State law. The findings indicate that monetary compensation associated with workers compensation claims is a major motive for exaggeration and Malingering of problems attributed to work-related brain injuries. The clinician's index of suspicion regarding exaggeration and Malingering of symptoms and deficits should be much hig...