21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The Efficiency and Accuracy of The Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1, Errors on the First 10 Items of The Test of Memory Malingering, and Five Embedded Measures in Predicting Invalid Test Performance

      Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering

          During the past two decades clinical and research efforts have led to increasingly sophisticated and effective methods and instruments designed to detect exaggeration or fabrication of neuropsychological dysfunction, as well as somatic and psychological symptom complaints. A vast literature based on relevant research has emerged and substantial portions of professional meetings attended by clinical neuropsychologists have addressed topics related to malingering (Sweet, King, Malina, Bergman, & Simmons, 2002). Yet, despite these extensive activities, understanding the need for methods of detecting problematic effort and response bias and addressing the presence or absence of malingering has proven challenging for practitioners. A consensus conference, comprised of national and international experts in clinical neuropsychology, was held at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) for the purposes of refinement of critical issues in this area. This consensus statement documents the current state of knowledge and recommendations of expert clinical neuropsychologists and is intended to assist clinicians and researchers with regard to the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity NAN policy & planning committee.

            Symptom exaggeration or fabrication occurs in a sizeable minority of neuropsychological examinees, with greater prevalence in forensic contexts. Adequate assessment of response validity is essential in order to maximize confidence in the results of neurocognitive and personality measures and in the diagnoses and recommendations that are based on the results. Symptom validity assessment may include specific tests, indices, and observations. The manner in which symptom validity is assessed may vary depending on context but must include a thorough examination of cultural factors. Assessment of response validity, as a component of a medically necessary evaluation, is medically necessary. When determined by the neuropsychologist to be necessary for the assessment of response validity, administration of specific symptom validity tests are also medically necessary.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Aggregation Across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to Likelihood Ratios

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
                Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0887-6177
                1873-5843
                May 16 2012
                June 01 2012
                April 27 2012
                June 01 2012
                : 27
                : 4
                : 417-432
                Article
                10.1093/arclin/acs044
                22543569
                71dc8185-a7ad-47ff-acd9-42337b0d98c7
                © 2012
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article