Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity, Response Bias, and Malingering: Official Position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law

Psychological Injury and Law

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 197-205

  Bush, Shane S ^a   Heilbronner, Robert L ^b   Ruff, Ronald M ^c  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

ASAPIL; Consensus statement; Malingering; Psychological injury and law; Response bias; Symptom validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939888207     PISSN: 1938971X     EISSN: 19389728     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12207-014-9198-7     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (EPPCC). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
2. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.
3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Behnke, S. H., Perlin, M. L., & Bernstein, M. (2003). The essentials of New York Mental Health Law: a straightforward guide for clinicians of all disciplines. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
5. Binder, L. M., & Rohling, M. L. (1996). Money matters: a meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed head injury. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 5–8.
6. British Psychological Society. (2009). Assessment of effort in clinical testing of cognitive functioning for adults. Leicester, UK: Author
7. Bush, S. S. (2009). Symptom validity assessment practices: ethical and professional considerations (Die praxis der beschwerdenvalidierung: ethische und fachwissenschaftliche gesichtspunkte). In T. Merten & H. Dettenborn (Eds.), Assessment of Malingering (Diagnostik der Beschwerdenvaliditat) (pp. 79–100). Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.
8. Bush, S. S. (2013). Ethical considerations in mild traumatic brain injury cases and symptom validity assessment. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering (pp. 45–56). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
9. Bush, S. S., Barth, J. T., Pliskin, N. H., Arffa, S., Axelrod, B. N., Blackburn, L. A., & Silver, C. H. (2005a). Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 997–1007.
10. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Troster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. H. (2005b). Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 419–426.
11. Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006a). Ethical Issues in forensic psychology: a systematic model for decision making. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
12. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. (2006b). Diagnostik der beschwerdenvalidität: praktische gesichtspunkte und medizinische erfordernisse. Neurologie und Rehabilitation, 12, 69–74.
13. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. (2007). Diagnostik der beschwerdenvalidität: praktische gesichtspunkte und medizinische erfordernisse. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 17, 155–163.
14. Feinstein, A., Ouchterlony, D., Somerville, J., & Jardine, A. (2001). The effects of litigation on symptom expression: a prospective study following mild traumatic brain injury. Medical Science and the Law, 41, 116–121.
15. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for administering and scoring the MMPI. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Heilbronner, R. L., & Henry, G. K. (2013). Psychological assessment of symptom magnification in mild traumatic brain injury cases. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering (pp. 183–202). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
17. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129
18. Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13, 77–90.
19. Rogers, R. (2008). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 3–13). New York: Guilford Press.
20. Ruff, R. (2009). Best practice guidelines for forensic neuropsychological examinations of patients with traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 24, 131–140.
21. Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545–561.
22. Sweet, J. J., & Moulthrop, M. A. (1999). Self-examination questions as a means of identifying bias in adversarial assessments. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1, 73–88.