RESUMO
Forensic practitioners must shoulder special responsibilities when evaluating over-stated pathology (e.g., malingering) as well as simulated adjustment. Such determinations may modify or even override other clinical findings. As a result, practitioners must be alert to their own misassumptions that may unintentionally bias their conclusions about response styles. Detection strategies for malingering-based on unlikely or markedly amplified presentations-are highlighted in this article. Given page constraints, assessment methods for feigning are succinctly presented with their applications to administrative, civil, and criminal referrals.
Assuntos
Criminosos , Simulação de Doença , Humanos , Simulação de Doença/diagnóstico , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , EnganaçãoRESUMO
The global pandemic has disrupted virtually all countries on health, psychological functioning, and economies, to name a few. Accurate information has also fallen victim to the pandemic, which has been rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. The current study investigated Covid-19 deceptions related to employment. With complete anonymity via MTurk, 389 participants from the United States rated their likelihood of deception regarding hypothetical four workplace scenarios. The first set of analyses examined differences between high and low risk of deceptions for each scenario based on participants' self-appraisals. The largest differences were found for general conspiracy beliefs and affective disorders, specifically major depression and generalized anxiety. The second set of analyses focused across the workplace scenarios on two operationalized groups with Likely-Deceptive (n = 189) vastly outnumbering Likely-Genuine (n = 55). Personal experiences with Covid-19 dramatically increased deceptions. Testing positive for Covid-19 increased the odds of being in the Likely-Deceptive by twelve-fold. Two discriminant models examined cognitive misbeliefs and psychological functioning. When both were combined, depression and Covid-19 misinformation produced the strongest structure coefficients followed closely by general conspiracy beliefs and generalized anxiety. The far-ranging implications of these findings are discussed.
RESUMO
Primary care physicians (PCPs) often daily address diagnoses and treatment of mental disorders in their practices. The current study examined the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC), a two-tiered electronic screen, assessing six common mental disorders. The eight-item Initial Screen assesses possible symptoms, whereas SAM modules establish provisional diagnoses and areas of clinical concern. With 234 patients from five independent PCP offices, diagnostic accuracy was tested with the SCID-5-RV as the external criterion. Concerningly, many patients were unaware of their current mental disorders and comorbidities. The CMFC Initial Screen evidenced strong sensitivity, identifying with very few missing diagnoses. About two-thirds of provisional SAM diagnoses were confirmed with high specificities. Bipolar Disorder posed the most challenges at both tiers. Importantly, the suicide screen identified all patients with suicide plans and three-fourths with ideation. In general, the CMFC effectively identified provisional diagnoses, impairment, and potential suicidality.