An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients

A known-groups comparison

Michael J Vitacco, Richard Rogers, Jason Gabel, Janice Munizza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The assessment of malingering is a fundamental component of forensic evaluations that should be considered with each referral. In systematizing the evaluation of malingering, one option is the standardized administration of screens as an initial step. The current study assessed the effectiveness of three common screening measures: the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2004), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation Scale (ECST-R ATP; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004). Using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) as the external criterion, 100 patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations were categorized as either probable malingerers (n=21) or nonmalingerers (n=79). Each malingering scale produced robust effect sizes in this known-groups comparison. Results are discussed in relation to the comprehensive assessment of malingering within a forensic context.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)249-260
Number of pages12
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Malingering
evaluation
Group
Widowhood
Symptom Assessment
widow
Referral and Consultation
Adenosine Triphosphate
Interviews
Equipment and Supplies
Competency
Evaluation
interview

Keywords

  • Competency to stand trial
  • Malingering
  • Screens

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Psychology(all)
  • Social Psychology

Cite this

An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients : A known-groups comparison. / Vitacco, Michael J; Rogers, Richard; Gabel, Jason; Munizza, Janice.

In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 3, 01.06.2007, p. 249-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vitacco, Michael J ; Rogers, Richard ; Gabel, Jason ; Munizza, Janice. / An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients : A known-groups comparison. In: Law and Human Behavior. 2007 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 249-260.
@article{3bec7b17945345379c328a623dbe1536,
title = "An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: A known-groups comparison",
abstract = "The assessment of malingering is a fundamental component of forensic evaluations that should be considered with each referral. In systematizing the evaluation of malingering, one option is the standardized administration of screens as an initial step. The current study assessed the effectiveness of three common screening measures: the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2004), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation Scale (ECST-R ATP; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004). Using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) as the external criterion, 100 patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations were categorized as either probable malingerers (n=21) or nonmalingerers (n=79). Each malingering scale produced robust effect sizes in this known-groups comparison. Results are discussed in relation to the comprehensive assessment of malingering within a forensic context.",
keywords = "Competency to stand trial, Malingering, Screens",
author = "Vitacco, {Michael J} and Richard Rogers and Jason Gabel and Janice Munizza",
year = "2007",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10979-006-9062-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "249--260",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients

T2 - A known-groups comparison

AU - Vitacco, Michael J

AU - Rogers, Richard

AU - Gabel, Jason

AU - Munizza, Janice

PY - 2007/6/1

Y1 - 2007/6/1

N2 - The assessment of malingering is a fundamental component of forensic evaluations that should be considered with each referral. In systematizing the evaluation of malingering, one option is the standardized administration of screens as an initial step. The current study assessed the effectiveness of three common screening measures: the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2004), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation Scale (ECST-R ATP; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004). Using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) as the external criterion, 100 patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations were categorized as either probable malingerers (n=21) or nonmalingerers (n=79). Each malingering scale produced robust effect sizes in this known-groups comparison. Results are discussed in relation to the comprehensive assessment of malingering within a forensic context.

AB - The assessment of malingering is a fundamental component of forensic evaluations that should be considered with each referral. In systematizing the evaluation of malingering, one option is the standardized administration of screens as an initial step. The current study assessed the effectiveness of three common screening measures: the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST; Miller, 2001), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2004), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation Scale (ECST-R ATP; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004). Using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) as the external criterion, 100 patients involved in competency to stand trial evaluations were categorized as either probable malingerers (n=21) or nonmalingerers (n=79). Each malingering scale produced robust effect sizes in this known-groups comparison. Results are discussed in relation to the comprehensive assessment of malingering within a forensic context.

KW - Competency to stand trial

KW - Malingering

KW - Screens

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248580845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248580845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10979-006-9062-8

DO - 10.1007/s10979-006-9062-8

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 249

EP - 260

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 3

ER -