J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 37:1:98-106 (2009)
Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Clinical and Conceptual Problems in the Attribution of Malingering in Forensic Evaluations
Sanford L. Drob, PhD,
Kevin B. Meehan, PhD and
Shari E. Waxman, EdM
Dr. Drob is a member of the Core Faculty, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, and is in private practice in forensic psychology in New York, NY. Dr. Meehan is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, at Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY. Ms. Waxman is Research Assistant to Dr. Drob.
Address correspondence to: Shari Waxman,E EdM, 35 Pineapple Street, Suite 3A, Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail: waxmanshari{at}earthlink.net
The authors review clinical and conceptual errors that contribute to false attributions of malingering in forensic evaluations. Unlike the mental disorders, malingering is not defined by a set of (relatively) enduring symptoms or traits; rather, it is an intentional, externally motivated, and context-specific form of behavior. Despite this general knowledge, attributions of malingering are often made by using assessment tools that may detect feigning but cannot be relied upon to determine incentive and volition or consciousness (defining characteristics of malingering). In addition, forensic evaluators may overlook the possibility that feigning is a function of true pathology, as in Ganser syndrome or the factitious disorders, or that a seemingly malingered presentation is due to symptoms of an underlying disorder, such as dissociative identity disorder (DID). Other factors that set the stage for false positives, such as pressure on forensic specialists to identify malingering at all costs, failure to consider the base rate problem, and cultural variables, are also reviewed.
Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
