Detecting malingered pain-related disability with the pain catastrophizing scale: a criterion groups validation study.

Objective: Intentional exaggeration of symptoms is a potential problem in contexts where there are financial incentives to appear disabled. Therefore, calibration of tools to accurately evaluate malingering in these contexts is important. The present study used a criterion groups validation design to determine the ability of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) to detect Malingered Pain-Related Disability (MPRD). Method: Individuals meeting inclusionary/exclusionary criteria were selected for this study (n = 219) from a larger dataset of chronic pain patients referred for a psychological evaluation. Patients were classified into malingering groups using the Bianchini, Greve, and Glynn classification system for MPRD. PCS T scores were compared in patients who met MPRD criteria and those who showed no indication of malingering on multiple validity tests. Results: No group differences were observed regarding medicolegal and injury characteristics. Group analyses showed that the Not MPRD group had a significantly lower PCS score (Estimated Marginal Mean [EMM] = 62.3) than all other groups. The Probable and Definite MPRD groups (which together comprise the MPRD group) had the highest PCS T scores (EMM = 77.2 and EMM = 83.8, respectively). A PCS T score of 81 was associated with a 7% false-positive (FP) error rate, sensitivity of 47%, likelihood ratio (LR) of 6.7, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of .74 at base rates around 30%. Conclusions: PCS T scores greater than 81 should raise concerns about the validity of the PCS report and provide additional information that can be helpful in identifying intentional symptom exaggeration in patients with chronic pain.

Integrative Care Models in Neuropsychology: A National Academy of Neuropsychology Education Paper.

Although collaborative, and more specifically, integrated models of care have existed for years, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded their use, and Medicare has adopted a value-based payment system that further emphasizes service provision within the collaborative health care setting. Neuropsychology as a field is well-situated to work within the integrated health care setting, which presents both opportunities and challenges for clinical neuropsychologists. This education paper details how different neuropsychology clinical practice settings fit into an integrated care framework; discusses challenges to service delivery and fiscal viability in such settings and other health care related settings; and examines future directions for the role of neuropsychology within a dynamic health care system.

Deciding to adopt revised and new psychological and neuropsychological tests: an inter-organizational position paper.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychological tests undergo periodic revision intended to improve psychometric properties, normative data, relevance of stimuli, and ease of administration. In addition, new tests are developed to evaluate psychological and neuropsychological constructs, often purporting to improve evaluation effectiveness. However, there is limited professional guidance to neuropsychologists concerning the decision to adopt a revised version of a test and/or replace an older test with a new test purporting to measure the same or overlapping constructs. This paper describes ethical and professional issues related to the selection and use of older versus newer psychological and neuropsychological tests, with the goal of promoting appropriate test selection and evidence-based decision making. METHOD: Ethical and professional issues were reviewed and considered. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of a newer version of a test does not necessarily render obsolete prior versions of the test for purposes that are empirically supported, nor should continued empirically supported use of a prior version of a test be considered unethical practice. Until a revised or new test has published evidence of improved ability to help clinicians to make diagnostic determinations, facilitate treatment, and/or assess change over time, the choice to delay adoption of revised or new tests may be viewed as reasonable and appropriate. Recommendations are offered to facilitate decisions about the adoption of revised and new tests. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of individual neuropsychologists to determine which tests best meet their patients' needs, and to be able to support their decisions with empirical evidence and sound clinical judgment.

Clusters of financially incentivized chronic pain patients using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF).

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) has been shown to have clinical utility in the assessment of individuals with chronic pain (e.g., predicting surgical outcomes). The purpose of this study was to explore the ability of the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in profiling patients with chronic pain who had external financial incentive (e.g., workers' compensation claims) and determine the associations between Validity Scale response patterns and important outcomes. Cluster analysis identified 2 similarly sized clusters of patients with very different MMPI-2-RF profiles. Cluster 1 was characterized by valid responding and showed mean elevations on the somatic and low positive emotion Restructured Clinical scales. Cluster 2 was characterized by patients overreporting on the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales, who also demonstrated elevations on 7 of the 9 RC scales. Cluster membership was differentially associated with clinical variables: patients in Cluster 2 had greater self-reported pain and disability, were less likely to have spine-related findings on imaging and were more likely to be classified as probable or definite malingerers. These results support the utility of the MMPI-2-RF Validity scales in distinguishing between credible and noncredible responses from patients with chronic pain seen within a medico-legal context. (PsycINFO Database Record

Classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)-Restructured form validity scales in detecting malingered pain-related disability.

The symptom reports of individuals with chronic pain are multidimensional (e.g., emotional, cognitive, and somatic) and significantly contribute to increased morbidity and lost work productivity. When pain occurs in the context of a legally compensable event, reliable assessment of a patient's multifactorial symptom experience during psychological or neuropsychological evaluations is a necessity. The Validity Scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) have been shown useful in identifying symptom overreporting and feigning within chronic pain samples and a number of studies have emerged supporting the use of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in the detection of simulated or feigned impairment in a variety of populations. To date, only 1 other study exists examining the ability of the MMPI-2-RF to detect exaggerated complaints using a strict operationalization of malingering exclusive to chronic pain samples. The purpose of this study was to examine the classification accuracy of MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in a group of patients with chronic pain using a criterion-groups design. The final sample consisted of 501 clinical chronic pain patients assigned to groups based on the Bianchini, Greve, and Glynn (2005) criteria for Malingered Pain-Related Disability (MPRD). Results showed that all MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales differentiated malingerers from nonmalingerers with a high degree of accuracy. At cut-offs associated with ≥95% Specificity, Sensitivities ranged from 15% (Fs) to 60% (Response Bias Scale; RBS). This study demonstrates that the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales are capable of differentiating intentional symptom exaggeration from genuine complaints in a sample of incentivized chronic pain patients. (PsycINFO Database Record

The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: reply to Nichols (2017).

We reply to Nichols' (2017) critique of our commentary on the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) as a measure of symptom exaggeration versus a measure of litigation response syndrome (LRS). Nichols claims that we misrepresented the thrust of the original paper he co-authored with Gass; namely, that they did not represent that the FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS but rather, intended to convey that the FBS/RBS-r were indeterminate as to whether the scales measured LRS or measured symptom exaggeration. Our original commentary offered statistical support from published literature that (1) FBS/FBS-r were associated with performance validity test (PVT) failure, establishing the scales as measures of symptom exaggeration, and (2) persons in litigation who passed PVTs did not produce clinically significant elevations on the scales, contradicting that FBS/FBS-r were measures of LRS. In the present commentary, we draw a distinction between the psychometric data we present supporting the validity of FBS/FBS-r, and the conceptual, non-statistical arguments presented by Nichols, who does not refute our original empirically based conclusions.

The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of 'litigation response syndrome': commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015).

OBJECTIVES: To address (1) Whether there is empirical evidence for the contention of Nichols and Gass that the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF FBS/FBS-r Symptom Validity Scale is a measure of Litigation Response Syndrome (LRS), representing a credible set of responses and reactions of claimants to the experience of being in litigation, rather than a measure of non-credible symptom report, as the scale is typically used; and (2) to address their stated concerns about the validity of FBS/FBS-r meta-analytic results, and the risk of false positive elevations in persons with bona-fide medical conditions. METHOD: Review of published literature on the FBS/FBS-r, focusing in particular on associations between scores on this symptom validity test and scores on performance validity tests (PVTs), and FBS/FBS-r score elevations in patients with genuine neurologic, psychiatric and medical problems. RESULTS: (1) several investigations show significant associations between FBS/FBS-r scores and PVTs measuring non-credible performance; (2) litigants who pass PVTs do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r; (3) non-litigating medical patients (bariatric surgery candidates, persons with sleep disorders, and patients with severe traumatic brain injury) who have multiple physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms do not produce significant elevations on FBS/FBS-r. Two meta-analytic studies show large effect sizes for FBS/FBS-r of similar magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: FBS/FBS-r measures non-credible symptom report rather than legitimate experience of litigation stress. Importantly, the absence of significant FBS/FBS-r elevations in litigants who pass PVTs demonstrating credible performance, directly contradicts the contention of Nichols and Gass that the scale measures LRS. These data, meta-analytic publications, and recent test use surveys support the admissibility of FBS/FBS-r under both Daubert and the older Frye criteria.

Cognitive Screening Tests Versus Comprehensive Neuropsychological Test Batteries: A National Academy of Neuropsychology Education Paper†.

The American Medical Association Current Procedural Panel developed a new billing code making behavioral health screening a reimbursable healthcare service. The use of computerized testing as a means for cognitive screening and brief cognitive testing is increasing at a rapid rate. The purpose of this education paper is to provide information to clinicians, healthcare administrators, and policy developers about the purpose, strengths, and limitations of cognitive screening tests versus comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations. Screening tests are generally brief and narrow in scope, they can be administered during a routine clinical visit, and they can be helpful for identifying individuals in need of more comprehensive assessment. Some screening tests can also be helpful for monitoring treatment outcomes. Comprehensive neuropsychological assessments are multidimensional in nature and used for purposes such as identifying primary and secondary diagnoses, determining the nature  and severity of a person's cognitive difficulties, determining functional limitations, and planning treatment and rehabilitation. Cognitive screening tests are expected to play an increasingly important role in identifying individuals with cognitive impairment and in determining which individuals should be referred for further neuropsychological assessment. However, limitations of existing cognitive screening tests are present and cognitive screening tests should not be used as a replacement for comprehensive neuropsychological testing.

Waddell non-organic signs: new evidence suggests somatic amplification among outpatient chronic pain patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Waddell et al. identified a set of eight non-organic signs in 1980. There has been controversy about their meaning, particularly with respect to their use as validity indicators. PURPOSE: The current study examined the Waddell signs in relation to measures of somatic amplification or over-reporting in a sample of outpatient chronic pain patients. We examined the degree to which these signs were associated with measures of over-reporting. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study examined scores on the Waddell signs in relation to over-reporting indicators in an outpatient chronic pain sample. PATIENT SAMPLE: We examined 230 chronic pain patients treated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic. The majority of these patients presented with primary back or spinal injuries. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures used in the study were Waddell signs, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. METHODS: We examined Waddell signs using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA), receiver operating characteristic analysis, classification accuracy, and relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of variance and ANOVA showed a significant association between Waddell signs and somatic amplification. Classification analyses showed increased odds of somatic amplification at a Waddell score of 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found significant evidence of an association between Waddell signs and somatic over-reporting. Elevated scores on the Waddell signs (particularly scores higher than 2 and 3) were associated with increased odds of exhibiting somatic over-reporting.

Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the detection of malingered pain-related disability in chronic pain.

The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI) are both popular clinical screening instruments in general orthopedic, rheumatologic, and neurosurgical clinics and are useful for identifying pain patients whose physical symptom presentations and disability may be non-organic. Previous studies found both to accurately detect malingered pain presentations; however, the generalizability of these results is not clear. This study used a criterion groups validation design (retrospective cohort of patients with chronic pain, n = 328) with a simulator group (college students, n = 98) to determine the accuracy of the MSPQ and PDI in detecting Malingered Pain Related Disability. Patients were grouped based on independent psychometric evidence of MPRD. Results showed that MSPQ and PDI scores were not associated with objective medical pathology. However, they accurately differentiated Not-MPRD from MPRD cases. Diagnostic statistics associated with a range of scores are presented for application to individual cases. Data from this study can inform the clinical management of chronic pain patients by screening for psychological overlay and malingering, thus alerting clinicians to the possible presence of psychosocial obstacles to effective treatment and triggering further psychological assessment and/or treatment.

Assessment of performance validity in the Stroop Color and Word Test in mild traumatic brain injury patients: a criterion-groups validation design.

The current study assessed performance validity on the Stroop Color and Word Test (Stroop) in mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) using criterion-groups validation. The sample consisted of 77 patients with a reported history of mild TBI. Data from 42 moderate-severe TBI and 75 non-head-injured patients with other clinical diagnoses were also examined. TBI patients were categorized on the basis of Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND). Classification accuracy is reported for three indicators (Word, Color, and Color-Word residual raw scores) from the Stroop across a range of injury severities. With false-positive rates set at approximately 5%, sensitivity was as high as 29%. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

The assessment of performance and self-report validity in persons claiming pain-related disability.

One third of all people will experience spinal pain in their lifetime and half of these will experience chronic pain. Pain often occurs in the context of a legally compensable event with back pain being the most common reason for filing a Workers Compensation claim in the United States. When financial incentives to appear disabled exist, malingered pain-related disability is a potential problem. Malingering may take the form of exaggerated physical, emotional, or cognitive symptoms and/or under-performance on measures of cognitive and physical capacity. Essential to the accurate detection of Malingered Pain-related Disability is the understanding that malingering is an act of will, the goal of which is to increase the appearance of disability beyond that which would naturally arise from the injury in question. This paper will review a number of Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) that have been developed to detect malingering in patients claiming pain-related disability and will conclude with a review of studies showing the diagnostic benefit of combining SVT findings from a comprehensive malingering assessment. The utilization of a variety of tools sensitive to the multiple manifestations of malingering increases the odds of detecting invalid claims while reducing the risk of rejecting a valid claim.

Memory in traumatic brain injury: the effects of injury severity and effort on the Wechsler Memory Scale-III.

This study examined the effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III) performance. Since poor effort potentially contaminates results, effort was explicitly assessed and controlled using two well-validated cognitive validity indicators, the Portland Digit Recognition Test (PDRT) and Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Participants were 44 mild TBI patients with good effort, 48 mild TBI patients with poor effort, and 40 moderate-severe TBI patients with good effort. A dose-response relationship between injury severity and WMS-III performance was demonstrated. Effect size calculations showed that the good effort mild TBI patients did not differ from normal (average Cohen's d= 0.07) while moderate-severe TBI had a moderate effect on WMS-III scores (average Cohen's d=-0.52). Consistent with previous literature, the moderate-severe TBI group scored the lowest on WMS-III Visual indices. Effort had a larger effect than injury severity on WMS-III scores (average Cohen's d=-1.27). Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Classification accuracy of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III modifier indices in the detection of malingering in traumatic brain injury.

The present study used criterion groups validation to determine the ability of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) modifier indices to detect malingering in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients with TBI who met criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) were compared to those who showed no indications of malingering. Data were collected from 108 TBI patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Base rate (BR) scores were used for MCMI-III modifier indices: Disclosure, Desirability, and Debasement. Malingering classification was based on the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for MND. TBI patients were placed in one of three groups: MND (n = 55), not-MND (n = 26), or Indeterminate (n = 26).The not-MND group had lower modifier index scores than the MND group. At scores associated with a 4% false-positive (FP) error rate, sensitivity was 47% for Disclosure, 51% for Desirability, and 55% for Debasement. Examination of joint classification analysis demonstrated 54% sensitivity at cutoffs associated with 0% FP error rate. Results suggested that scores from all MCMI-III modifier indices are useful for identifying intentional symptom exaggeration in TBI. Debasement was the most sensitive of the three indices. Clinical implications are discussed.

Criterion groups validation of the Seashore Rhythm Test and Speech Sounds Perception Test for the detection of malingering in traumatic brain injury.

A criterion-groups validation was used to determine the classification accuracy of the Seashore Rhythm Test (SRT) and Speech Sounds Perception Test (SSPT) in detecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). TBI patients were classified into the following groups: (1) Mild TBI Not-MND (n = 24); (2) Mild TBI MND (n = 27); and (3) Moderate/Severe TBI Not-MND (n = 23). A sample of 90 general clinical patients was utilized for comparison. Results showed that both SRT correct and SSPT errors differentiated malingerers from non-malingerers in the Mild TBI sample. At 96% specificity, sensitivities were 37% for SRT correct and 59% for SSPT errors. Joint classification accuracy showed that the best accuracy was achieved when using a cut-off associated with a 4% false positive error rate in the Mild TBI sample. Specificity was considerably lower in the Moderate/Severe TBI and General Clinical groups. The clinical application of these findings is discussed.

Detection of malingering in mild traumatic brain injury with the Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II.

Classification accuracy for the detection of malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) in mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is examined for two selected measures from the Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II (CPT-II) using criterion-groups validation. Individual and joint classification accuracies are presented for Omissions and Hit Reaction Time Standard Error across a range of scores comparing mild TBI malingering (n = 27), mild TBI not-malingering (n = 31), and moderate-to-severe (M/S) TBI not-malingering (n = 24) groups. At cutoffs associated with at least 95% specificity in both mild and M/S TBI, sensitivity to MND in mild TBI was 30% for Omissions, 41% for Hit Reaction Time Standard Error, and 44% using both indicators. These results support the use of the CPT-II as a reliable indicator for the detection of malingering in TBI when used as part of a comprehensive diagnostic system.

The Reliable Digit Span test in chronic pain: classification accuracy in detecting malingered pain-related disability.

This study used criterion groups validation (known-groups design) to examine the classification accuracy of the Reliable Digit Span test (RDS) in a large group of chronic pain patients referred for psychological evaluation. The sample consisted of 612 patients classified into one of six groups based on evidence of malingered pain-related disability (MPRD): No-Incentive, Not MPRD; Incentive-Only, Not MPRD; Indeterminate; Possible MPRD; Probable MPRD; Definite MPRD. A total of 30 college student simulators were also included. Lower average RDS scores and higher rates of RDS failure were seen in patients classified as MPRD and in simulators. Consistent with previous literature in a variety of populations, RDS < = 6 provided the most accurate differentiation between MPRD and non-MPRD pain patients. Clinical implications are discussed.

Executive dysfunction in traumatic brain injury: the effects of injury severity and effort on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

This study examined the persistent effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) performance. Since poor effort can contaminate results in populations with incentive to perform poorly, performance validity was explicitly assessed and controlled for using multiple well-validated cognitive malingering indicators. Participants were 109 patients with mild TBI and 67 patients with moderate-to-severe TBI seen for neuropsychological evaluation at least one year post injury. Patients with diffuse neurological impairment and healthy controls were included for comparison. Results suggested a dose-response effect of TBI severity on WCST performance in patients providing good effort; the mild TBI group did not differ from controls while increased levels of impairment were observed in the moderate-to-severe TBI group. Effort during testing had a larger impact on WCST performance than mild or moderate-to-severe TBI. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and malingering in traumatic brain injury: classification accuracy in known groups.

A known-groups design was used to determine the classification accuracy of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III) variables in detecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). TBI patients were classified into the following groups: (a) mild TBI not-MND (n = 26), (b) mild TBI MND (n = 31), and (c) moderate/severe (M/S) TBI not-MND (n = 26). A sample of 80 general clinical patients was used for comparison. Verbal IQ, Verbal Comprehension Index, and Working Memory Index detected approximately 25% of malingerers with a false positive (FP) error rate of approximately 5% in the mild TBI group. Comparable FP rates were obtained in M/S TBI. FP rates for Performance IQ, Perceptual Organization Index, and Processing Speed Index were acceptable in mild TBI but too high in M/S TBI. Previously studied specialized indicators (Vocabulary minus Digit Span and the Mittenberg formula) failed to differentiate malingerers from nonmalingerers. The clinical application of these findings is discussed.