Field validity of a measure of malingering with motor-vehicle accident claimants

摘要

role of psychological assessment in the detection of malingering is a complex one beleaguered by changing definitions criteria, varying methods for assessment, and challenges to the validity and reliability of measures currently used. Establishing valid and reliable measures, as well as normative values applicable to various clinical groups remains increasingly important, particularly in forensic settings. This study sought to evaluate the convergent and concurrent validity of the Inventory of Problems (IOP; Viglione & Landis, 1998), a multi-method assessment tool in the detection of malingering behaviors. More specifically, to increase the external validity of the IOP, this study sought to validate the measure with a forensic sample, comparing results to commonly-used measures in the detection of: exaggerated symptom endorsement with the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Tests (MFAST; Miller, 2004) and poor effort with the Test of Memory of Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 2002). Two main hypotheses were analyzed, which revealed overall mixed conclusions regarding the IOP's validity, all of which will be discussed in the paragraphs below. The results also reveal information about motor vehicle accidents claimants and the character of their exaggerations, which was addressed in this research as a contribution of the study.