Jerry J. Sweet

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.

The TCN/AACN 2010 “Salary Survey”: Professional Practices, Beliefs, and Incomes of U.S. Neuropsychologists

Doctoral-level members of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Neuropsychology, and other neuropsychologists, were invited to participate in a web-based survey in early 2010. The sample of respondents was 56% larger than a prior related income and practice survey in 2005. The substantial proportional change in gender taking place in the field has continued, with 7 of 10 post-doctoral residents being women and, for the first time ever, more than half of the total sample of respondents being women. Whereas the median age of APA members has been over 50 since the early 1990s, the current median age of clinical neuropsychologists remains at 47 and has remained essentially unchanged since 1989, indicating substantial entrance of young psychologists into the field. The Houston Conference training model has influenced the vast majority of residency training sites, and is endorsed as compatible with prior training by two-thirds of all respondents. Testing assistant usage remains commonplace, and is much more common in institutions. The “flexible battery” approach has again increased in popularity and predominates, whereas endorsement of the “fixed/standardized battery” approach has continued to decline. The vast majority of clinical neuropsychologists work full time. Average length of time reported for evaluations increased significantly from 2005, which does not appear to be explained by changes in common referral sources or common diagnostic conditions being evaluated. The most common factors affecting evaluation length were identified, with the top three being goal of evaluation, stamina/health of examinee, and age of examinee. Pediatric specialists are more likely than others to work part time, more likely to be women, more likely to work in institutions, and report lower incomes than respondents whose professional identity is purely adult or a combination of adult and pediatric. Incomes once again vary considerably by years of clinical practice, work setting, amount of forensic practice, state, and region of country. Job satisfaction has little relationship to income and is comparable across most variables (e.g., work setting, professional identity, amount of forensic activity), whereas income satisfaction has a stronger relationship to actual income, and income satisfaction and job satisfaction are moderately correlated. Job satisfaction of neuropsychologists in general is higher than reported for other US jobs. Fewer than 5% of respondents are considering changing job position. As was true in the 2005 survey, a substantial majority of respondents reported increased incomes over the last 5 years. Actual reported income values were meaningfully higher than in 2005 across general work settings and professional identities, and were also higher for entry-level positions. Numerous breakdowns related to income and professional activities are provided.

Effort Indicators within the California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II)

This study determined whether performance patterns on the California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) could differentiate participants with traumatic brain injury (TBI) showing adequate effort from those with mild TBI exhibiting poor effort using a case-control design. The TBI group consisted of 124 persons with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The poor effort group consisted of 77 persons with mild head injury who were involved in litigation (LG) and failed at least one stand-alone symptom validity measure (SVT) and also either a second SVT or an effort indicator embedded within a standard clinical test. A total of 18 CVLT-II variables were investigated using Bayesian model averaging (BMA) for logistic regression to determine which variables best differentiated the groups. The CVLT-II variables having the most support were Long-Delay Free Recall, Total Recognition Discriminability (d′), and Total Recall Discriminability.

Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: Exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs

Forensic neuropsychology studies usually address either cognitive effort or psychological response validity. Whether these are distinct constructs is unclear. In 122 participants evaluated in a compensation-seeking context, the present Exploratory Factor Analysis examined whether forced-choice cognitive effort measures (Victoria Symptom Validity Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Letter Memory Test) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition (MMPI-2) validity scales (L, F, K, FBS, Fp, RBS, Md, Dsr2, S) load on independent factors. Regardless of factor rotation strategy (orthogonal or oblique), four response validity factors emerged by means of both Principal Components Analysis (82.7% total variance) and Principal-Axis Factor Analysis (74.1% total variance). The four factors were designated as follows: Factor I, with large loadings from L, K, and S--underreporting of psychological symptoms; Factor II, with large loadings from FBS, RBS, and Md-overreporting of neurotic symptoms; Factor III, with large loadings from VSVT, TOMM, and LMT--insufficient cognitive effort; and Factor IV, with the largest loadings from F, Fp, and Dsr2--overreporting of psychotic/rarely endorsed symptoms. Results reflect the heterogeneity of response validity in forensic samples referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Administration of both cognitive effort measures and psychological validity scales is imperative to accurate forensic neuropsychological assessment.

Further investigation of traumatic brain injury versus insufficient effort with the California Verbal Learning Test

The present study replicates and attempts to extend previous research using the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) to identify malingerers. Documented moderate and severe traumatic brain injury patients (n = 42) were compared with clinical malingerers identified by criteria other than the CVLT (n = 21), malingering simulators instructed in realistic potential injury sequelae (n = 25), and normal controls (n = 21). Results of discriminant function analyses for high and low base rates are reported, showing similar results. Also, the four individual cutoff scores (Recognition Hits, Discriminability, Total Words Recalled, Long Delay Cued Recall) from Millis, Putnam, Adams, and Ricker (1995) were evaluated with these groups. Similar specificity rates were found with all four variables, while sensitivity rates were slightly lower than that of Millis. Adjusted cutoffs derived from the new samples resulted in slightly improved overall classification rates. Overall, present findings support those of Millis et al. (1995) with regard to the use of the CVLT in detection of malingering. Exploratory use of Total Intrusions and Recognition Hits Compared to Long Delay Free Recall was not promising. Simulators were found to be fairly comparable in performance to actual malingerers, affirming their use in malingering research.

Official position of the american academy of clinical neuropsychology on serial neuropsychological assessments: the utility and challenges of repeat test administrations in clinical and forensic contexts

Serial assessments are now common in neuropsychological practice, and have a recognized value in numerous clinical and forensic settings. These assessments can aid in differential diagnosis, tracking neuropsychological strengths and weaknesses over time, and managing various neurologic and psychiatric conditions. This document provides a discussion of the benefits and challenges of serial neuropsychological testing in the context of clinical and forensic assessments. Recommendations regarding the use of repeated testing in neuropsychological practice are provided.

Meta-Analysis of the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale: Utility in Forensic Practice

ABSTRACT Some clinical researchers disagree regarding the clinical utility of the MMPI-2 Fake Bad scale (FBS ) within forensic and clinical settings. The present meta-analysis summarizes weighted effect size differences among the FBS and other commonly used validity scales (L, F, K, Fb, Fp, F-K, O-S, Ds2, Dsr2 ) in symptom overreporting and comparison groups. Forty studies that included FBS were identified through exploration of online databases, perusal of published references, and communication with primary authors. Nineteen of the 40 studies met restrictive inclusion criteria, resulting in a pooled sample size of 3664 (1615 overreporting participants and 2049 comparison participants). The largest grand effect sizes were observed for FBS (.96), followed by O-S (.88), Dsr2 (.79), F-K (.69), and the F- scale (.63). Significant within-scale variability was observed for seven validity scales, including FBS (Q = 119.11, p < .001). Several subsequent FBS moderator analyses yielded moderate to large effect sizes and were statistically significant for level of cognitive effort, type of overreporting comparison group, and condition associated with overreporting (e.g., traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress, chronic pain). Findings suggest that the FBS performs as well as, if not superior to, other validity scales in discriminating overreporting and comparison groups; the preponderance of the present literature supports the scales use within forensic settings.

P300 scalp amplitude distribution as an index of deception in a simulated cognitive deficit model

Truth-telling (Truth) and simulated malingering (Malinger) groups were tested in a matching-to-sample procedure in which each sample three-digit number was followed by a series of nine test numbers, only one of which matched the sample. P300 was recorded during test-number presentation. Group analyses revealed differences between the P300s of the groups in unscaled amplitude, but not latency, in response to match and mismatch stimuli. P300 amplitudes at Fz, Cz, and Pz were scaled to remove possible confounding effects of amplitude in tests of the interactions of site with other variables. Significant interactions of both stimulus-type (match vs. mismatch) and group (Truth vs. Malinger) with site were obtained. Within the Malinger group, a significant interaction was obtained (scaled data) between site and response type (honest vs. dishonest). These interactions suggest that deceptive and honest responding are associated with different neurogenerator sets or different sets of P300-overlapping components. In within-individual analyses, 100% of the Truth participants and 87% of the Malinger participants were found to have larger P300 responses at Pz to match stimuli than to mismatch stimuli on the basis of intra-individual bootstrap tests. This represents an improvement in comparison with our related, previous report on a matching-to-sample test using only one test stimulus per sample.

Ten-Year Follow-up Survey of Clinical Neuropsychologists: Part I. Practices and Beliefs

A 21-item questionnaire previously used to survey practices and beliefs of clinical neuropsychologists (Sweet & Moberg, 1990; Sweet, Moberg, & Westergaard, 1996) was mailed in February 1999 to all ABPP Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology and a larger sample of randomly selected non-ABPP members of Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association. Results were compared with data previously collected in 1989 and 1994. Across 10 years there have been some persistent differences between neuropsychologists based on board certification status. These differences include degree of involvement in neuropsychological practice and forensic practice, involvement in research and teaching, frequency of subscribing to or regularly reading a variety of relevant journals, employment settings, use of assistants, and use of projective assessment. There are also a number of areas of shared belief and common practice. These important areas of agreement are unrelated to board certification status and are interpreted as signs of cohesiveness and maturity in the continuing evolution of the subspecialty. Shared beliefs and common practices include: appropriate field of training, type of degree, assessment philosophy, most types of information to be gathered in evaluations, and time spent per assessment. In general, the use of assistants is correlated significantly with the number of evaluations performed per month. Although sometimes viewed as exclusively providing assessment, the majority of neuropsychologists are also involved in treating patients with brain dysfunction. Survey data appear useful in characterizing and monitoring professional status and trends of clinical neuropsychology.

Detecting simulated amnesia for autobiographical and recently learned information using the P300 event-related potential.

To investigate whether the P300 (P3) event-related potential (ERP) can be used as an index of the intactness of recognition memory in subjects trying to simulate amnesia, two groups of subjects (n = 12 and n = 15) were instructed to simulate amnesia and one group of control subjects (n = 14) did not simulate amnesia while taking three recognition tests, during which ERPs were recorded. The three tests consisted of three different types of memory items: (1) the subjects birthday (birth), (2) the experimenters name (name), (3) a word list of 14 nouns (words). The memory item was presented in a random series with other, similar in type, non-memory items. In group tests, memory items evoked larger amplitude P3s than non-memory items (p < 0.001). Within-subjects tests were used to determine whether the P3 amplitude in response to memory items was larger than the P3 amplitude in response to non-memory items for each individual. There was no difference between the sensitivity of the best within-subjects tests for amnesia simulators (birth = 0.9, name = 0.85, words = 0.53) versus non-simulators (birth = 1.0, name = 0.81, words = 0.5) averaged across the three test types. This suggests that P3 used as an index of the intactness of recognition memory may be useful in cases of suspected malingering.