Nathan D. Gillard

A Study of the SIRS With Severely Traumatized Patients

Clinical research has revealed that traumatized patients often elevate feigning indicators on psychological measures, which raises the possibility that traumatization and concomitant dissociation may lead to misclassifications of malingering. Within the domain of feigned mental disorders, the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) is a well established measure with excellent reliability and validity across clinical and forensic settings. Although recent studies have demonstrated its effectiveness with outpatient posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) samples, the SIRS usefulness with severely traumatized patients remains to be investigated. In this study, we recruited traumatized patients for a within-subjects simulation design in which we asked feigners to convincingly portray themselves as examinees claiming total disabilities. When compared to standard instructions, feigned presentations produced substantial effect sizes. Although the standard SIRS classifications produced moderately high sensitivities (M = .82), the false-positive rates were problematic. To minimize false-positives, we constructed a Trauma Index (TI) from 3 primary SIRS scales that appeared unaffected by severe trauma. Implementation of the TI substantially reduced false-positive rates (M = .09).

The Detection of Feigned Disabilities: The Effectiveness of the Personality Assessment Inventory in a Traumatized Inpatient Sample

Research on feigned mental disorders indicates that severe psychopathology coupled with significant trauma histories often complicate feigning determinations, resulting in inaccuracies on otherwise effective measures. As part of malingering assessments, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is often used because of its excellent validation and the availability of three feigning indicators (Negative Impression, Malingering Index, and Rogers Discriminant Function), which have evidenced large effect sizes and clinically useful cut scores. The current study examined the effectiveness of the PAI in a traumatized inpatient sample using a between-subjects simulation design. Although Negative Impression appeared affected by trauma—especially in conjunction with dissociative symptoms—very positive results were found for Malingering Index and Rogers Discriminant Function. They remained relatively unelevated under honest conditions, despite posttraumatic stress disorder and extensive comorbidity. Using single-point cut scores provided moderately good classification of feigned and genuine PAI profiles. For purposes of classification, the authors operationally defined small indeterminate groups that were considered too close to classify (i.e., ±5T of the cut scores). With indeterminate cases removed, the overall classification rates improved modestly. However, the more important finding involved the error rates for the indeterminate group, which exceeded 50%. Directions for further research are discussed.

Cross-Validation of the PAI Negative Distortion Scale for Feigned Mental Disorders A Research Report

A major strength of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is its systematic assessment of response styles, including feigned mental disorders. Recently, Mogge, Lepage, Bell, and Ragatz developed and provided the initial validation for the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS). Using rare symptoms as its detection strategy for feigning, the usefulness of NDS was examined via a known-groups comparison. The current study sought to cross-validate the NDS by implementing a between-subjects simulation design. Simulators were asked to feign total disability in an effort to secure unwarranted compensation from their insurance company. Even in an inpatient sample with severe Axis I disorders and concomitant impairment, the NDS proved effective as a rare-symptom strategy with low levels of item endorsement that remained mostly stable across genders. For construct validity, the NDS was moderately correlated with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms–Second Edition and other PAI feigning scales. For discriminant validity, it yielded a very large effect size (d = 1.81), surpassing the standard PAI feigning indicators. Utility estimates appeared to be promising for both ruling-out (low probability of feigning) and ruling-in (high probability of feigning) determinations at different base rates. Like earlier research, the data supported the creation of well-defined groups with indeterminate scores (i.e., the cut score ± 1 SEM) removed to avoid high rates of misclassifications for this narrow band.

Denial of risk: The effects of positive impression management on risk assessments for psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders

Risk assessments for offenders often combine past records with current clinical findings from observations, interviews, and test data. Conclusions based on these risk assessments are highly consequential, sometimes resulting in increased criminal sentences or prolonged hospitalization. Therefore, many offenders are motivated to intentionally minimize risk factors and their negative consequences. Positive impression management (PIM) is especially likely to occur in offenders with high psychopathic traits because goal-directed deception is reflected in several of psychopathys core traits of the disorder, such as manipulativeness, glibness, and superficial charm. However, this connection appears to be based on the conceptual understanding of psychopathy, and has rarely been examined empirically for either frequency of or success at deception. The current study examined the ability of a jail sample to intentionally minimize risk factors and related criminal attributes using a repeated measures, simulation design. In general, offenders were able to effectively use PIM to lower scores on the HCR-20 and the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), while the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), as a measure of cognitive styles, was more resistant to such minimization. Psychopathic traits, especially high Factor 1 scores (i.e., affective/interpersonal), were associated with greater PIM. Important differences in the willingness and ability to use deception were found based on the (a) mode of administration (i.e., interview vs. self-report) and (b) level of psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R). The important implications of this research are discussed for risk assessment procedures regarding likely areas of deception and its detection. The current research also informs the growing literature on the connection between psychopathic traits and deception.