The association between clinicians' initial judgments of feigning and outcomes on symptom validity measures among pretrial forensic psychiatric inpatients

Research suggests the use of validated symptom validity tests to detect feigning is imperative to increase accuracy over unaided clinical judgment, especially in forensic settings. This study examined performance on the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms (M-FAST) and Structured Interview of Repo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of law and psychiatry 2021-05, Vol.76, p.101698-101698, Article 101698
Main Authors: Ng, Wendy, Mattos, Laurel A., Coffey, C. Adam, Molina, Stephany M., Gottfried, Emily D., Glassmire, David M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical judgment
M-FAST
Malingering
Psychiatric feigning
SIRS
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Research suggests the use of validated symptom validity tests to detect feigning is imperative to increase accuracy over unaided clinical judgment, especially in forensic settings. This study examined performance on the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms (M-FAST) and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) during 297 assessments of forensic inpatients. The risk of being identified as feigning on the M-FAST or SIRS was similar for those who were referred for evaluation of feigning compared to those who were not, but individuals with malingering designations prior to the evaluation scored significantly higher than those without on the M-FAST and several SIRS subscales. Findings support the importance of utilizing objective methods of data collection.
ISSN:0160-2527
1873-6386
DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2021.101698