PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11778576

Symptom validity testing: a critical review.

K J Bianchini·C W Mathias·K W Greve
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the published literature on symptom validity tests (SVT) and, with the accompanying tables, serves as a reference to assist in their selection, interpretation, and defense. Because malingering is inherently an applied problem that frequently arises in a medico-legal context, the use of SVTs must meet certain standards. Thus, a number of methodological and theoretical weaknesses of SVT research which limit the use of SVTs as clinical tools and sources of evidence are highlighted. These criticisms incorporate recommendations which must be addressed if conclusions based on SVT data are to meet the increasingly rigorous standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Explore related subjects

Brain Injury, ChronicExpert TestimonyHead Injuries, ClosedHumansMalingeringNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K J Bianchini, C W Mathias, K W Greve. 2001. Symptom validity testing: a critical review.. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.15.1.19.1907

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[Insufficient cooperativeness in forensic neuropsychiatric assessment: prevalence estimates of negative response bias].

In the context of independent medical examinations, negative response bias in patients is a problem of primary importance, especially in cases where self-reported symptoms cannot be directly verified by the examiner. Estimates of the prevalence of uncooperativeness in neuropsychological evaluations demonstrated that invalid test profiles are to be expected in a sizable minority of examinees. However, no estimates have ever been published in German-speaking countries. Symptom validity was checked in 235 patients who reported cognitive symptoms after suffering an accident and who underwent forensic neuropsychiatric assessment. Patient classification was based on the results obtained with the Word Memory Test (WMT) or the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). When applying the recommended cutoffs for these tests, 44.3 percent of the sample was found to be classified as suspect for insufficient effort. In a subsample of 47 patients with claims of posttraumatic stress disorder 51.1 percent were found to score below the cutoffs. These findings underline the importance of modern methods for assessment of symptom validity in forensic contexts. Cooperativeness of compensation claimants cannot be assumed solely on the basis of clinical impression.

Brain Injury, Chronic↗
PubMed2006

Further documentation of remote effects of electrical injuries, with comments on the place of neuropsychological testing and functional scanning.

It is not always recognized that morbidity from electrical injury is not confined to effects in the pathway of current flow. Indeed a major element of the disability suffered by victims occur from effects remote to the line of current passage. Recent papers have rightly drawn further attention to this, and it is an active area of controversy and research. This paper documents the authors experience in this area and confirms the recognizable elements of remote injuries which are seen to be generally psychological in nature. The question of mechanisms of causation of these disabilities is raised. This paper then presents summary results of a collation of neuropsychological investigations and functional cerebral scanning in an attempt to correlate the two. It is concluded that it is possible to overlook the remote effects of electrical injury to the detriment of victims.

Brain Injury, Chronic↗