The effects of symptom information coaching on the feigning of adult ADHD.

College students without ADHD may feign symptoms of ADHD to gain access to stimulant medications and academic accommodations. Unfortunately, research has shown that it can be difficult to discriminate malingered from genuine ADHD symptomatology, especially when evaluations are based only on self-report questionnaires. The present study investigated whether nonclinical college students given no additional information could feign ADHD as successfully as those who were coached on symptoms of the disorder. Similar to Jasinski et al. (2011) and other research on feigned ADHD, a battery of neuropsychological, performance validity, and self-report tests was administered. Undergraduates with no history of ADHD or other psychiatric disorders were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 simulator groups: a coached group that was given information about ADHD symptoms, or a noncoached group that was given no such information. Both simulator groups were asked to feign ADHD. Their performance was compared to a genuine ADHD group and a nonclinical group asked to respond honestly. Self-report, neuropsychological, and performance validity test data are discussed in the context of the effect of coaching and its implications for ADHD evaluations. Symptom coaching did not have a significant effect on feigning success. Performance validity tests were moderately effective at detecting feigned ADHD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Discriminating among ADHD alone, ADHD with a comorbid psychological disorder, and feigned ADHD in a college sample.

Since the early 2000s concern has increased that college students might feign ADHD in pursuit of academic accommodations and stimulant medication. In response, several studies have validated tests for use in differentiating feigned from genuine ADHD. Although results have generally been positive, relatively few publications have addressed the possible impact of the presence of psychological disorders comorbid with ADHD. Because ADHD is thought to have accompanying conditions at rates of 50% and higher, it is important to determine if the additional psychological disorders might compromise the accuracy of feigning detection measures. The present study extended the findings of Jasinski et al. (2011) to examine the efficacy of various measures in the context of feigned versus genuine ADHD with comorbid psychological disorders in undergraduate students. Two clinical groups (ADHD only and ADHD + comorbid psychological disorder) were contrasted with two non-clinical groups (normal controls answering honestly and normal participants feigning ADHD). Extending previous research to individuals with ADHD and either an anxiety or learning disorder, performance validity tests such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), the Letter Memory Test (LMT), and the Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT) were effective in differentiating both ADHD groups from normal participants feigning ADHD. However, the Digit Memory Test (DMT) underperformed in this study, as did embedded validity indices from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) and Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement-III (WJ-III).

Accuracy of MMPI-2-RF validity scales for identifying feigned PTSD symptoms, random responding, and genuine PTSD.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF (MMPI-2-RF) validity scales were evaluated to determine accuracy when differentiating honest responding, random responding, genuine posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and feigned PTSD. Undergraduate students (n = 109), screened for PTSD, were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 instructional groups: honest, feign PTSD, half random, and full random. Archival data provided clinical MMPI-2-RF profiles consisting of 31 veterans diagnosed with PTSD. Veterans were diagnosed with PTSD using a structured interview and had passed a structured interview for malingering. Validity scales working as a group had correct classification rates of honest (96.6%), full random (88.9%), genuine PTSD (80.7%), fake PTSD (73.1%), and half random (44.4%). Results were fairly supportive of the scales' ability to discriminate feigning and full random responding from honest responding of normal students as well as veterans with PTSD. However, the RF validity scales do not appear to be as effective in detecting partially random responding.

Neuropsychological effects of self-reported deployment-related mild TBI and current PTSD in OIF/OEF veterans.

Current combat veterans are exposed to many incidents that may result in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While there is literature on the neuropsychological consequences of PTSD only (PTSD-o) and mTBI alone (mTBI-o), less has been done to explore their combined (mTBI+PTSD) effect. The goal of this study was to determine whether Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans with mTBI+PTSD have poorer cognitive and psychological outcomes than veterans with PTSD-o, mTBI-o, or combat exposure-only. The final sample included 20 OIF/OEF veterans with histories of self-reported deployment mTBI (mTBI-o), 19 with current PTSD (PTSD-o), 21 with PTSD and self-reported mTBI (mTBI+PTSD), and 21 combat controls (CC) (no PTSD and no reported mTBI). Groups were formed using structured interviews for mTBI and PTSD. All participants underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing, including neurocognitive and psychiatric feigning tests. Results of cognitive tests revealed significant differences in performance in the mTBI+PTSD and PTSD-o groups relative to mTBI-o and CC. Consistent with previous PTSD literature, significant differences were found on executive (switching) tasks, verbal fluency, and verbal memory. Effect sizes tended to be large in both groups with PTSD. Thus, PTSD seems to be an important variable affecting neuropsychological profiles in the post-deployment time period. Consistent with literature on civilian mTBI, the current study did not find evidence that combat-related mTBI in and of itself contributes to objective cognitive impairment in the late stage of injury.

Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits.

This study provides psychometric data for a new self-report measure of borderline personality traits from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. Subscales were constructed in an undergraduate sample (n = 109) to assess maladaptive variants of 12 FFM traits (e.g., Affective Dysregulation as a maladaptive variant of FFM Vulnerability). On the basis of data from a second undergraduate sample (n = 111), the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) subscales were shown to have good internal consistency, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. These psychometric results were replicated in a clinical sample of female residents at a substance abuse treatment facility (n = 94).

Five factor model prototype matching scores: convergence within alternative methods.

The Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM) has been proposed as a potential alternative to the current DSM-IV-TR model, which conceptualizes personality disorders (PDs) as categorical constructs. While an extensive literature has pointed out the flaws of the diagnostic categories, they are quite familiar to clinicians and there may still be instances when identifying these constructs for clinical purposes, such as for rapidly communicating information about a patient, is warranted. From the perspective of the FFM, the PDs represent specific constellations of personality traits and research has demonstrated that the PDs can be recovered by assessing the degree to which an FFM profile matches the FFM description of a prototypic PD case. The current study builds upon that research by assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of prototype scores and DSM-IV PD measures using self-report, informant report, semi-structured interview, and clinician descriptions. The results suggest that the prototype matching scores are largely valid across these methods for all PDs, with perhaps the exception of obsessive-compulsive. These findings are related to previous research and the clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits.

The current study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of schizotypy from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Nine schizotypy scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Aberrant Ideas as a maladaptive variant of FFM Openness to Ideas). On the basis of data from 143 undergraduates, the convergent validity of these nine scales was tested with respect to seven established measures of schizotypy and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains and components of schizotypy. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM schizotypy scales to account for variance in two established measures of schizotypy, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facets and other established measures of schizotypy were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of schizotypal traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.

Assessment of dependency, agreeableness, and their relationship.

Agreeableness is central to the 5-factor model conceptualization of dependency. However, 4 meta-analyses of the relationship of agreeableness with dependency have failed to identify a consistent relationship. It was the hypothesis of the current study that these findings might be due in part to an emphasis on the assessment of adaptive, rather than maladaptive, variants of agreeableness. This hypothesis was tested by using experimentally altered NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992) items that were reversed with respect to their implications for maladaptiveness. The predicted correlations were confirmed with the experimentally altered version with measures of dependent personality disorder, measures of trait dependency (including 2 measures of adaptive dependency), and measures of dependency from alternative dimensional models of personality disorder. The theoretical implications of the findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.