Diagnostic and Construct Validation of Symptom and Performance Validity Tests of Malingering in a Civil Litigation Context

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorVincent, John P.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberHarris, Gerald E.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberBarr, Christopher D.
dc.creatorFox, Katherine Alvord
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-21T21:07:14Z
dc.date.available2018-11-21T21:07:14Z
dc.date.createdAugust 2018
dc.date.issued2018-08
dc.date.submittedAugust 2018
dc.date.updated2018-11-21T21:07:14Z
dc.description.abstractThe extent to which persons may malinger psychiatric symptoms is a legitimate concern in civil litigation. The consequences inherent in personal injury cases involving psychological distress necessitate an understanding of how malingering presents in medico-legal contexts and the validity and usefulness of available methods to detect malingering. The present study evaluated the construct and diagnostic validity of symptom-based (SVT) and performance-based (PVT) measures of malingering in a simulated personal injury paradigm. We evaluated the interrelationships between malingering measures and whether these measures were able to discriminate between “honest responders” and “malingerers.” Using a simulation design, 411 undergraduates were randomly assigned into four experimental conditions, which outlined the experience of a motor vehicle accident and subsequent psychological and cognitive symptoms. Conditions varied on the degree of suggestion to malinger symptoms as related to a personal injury case. Under this paradigm, participants completed measures of malingered symptomatology, including the TOMM, M-FAST, SIMS, and TSI-2 ATR. As predicted, we found weaker correlations between PVT and SVTs, but moderate significant correlations were found across symptom validity measures. These findings support conceptualization of malingering as a non-unitary construct. Results from ROC analysis suggest that only the TSI-2 ATR was useful in discriminating between simulation groups. Contrary to expectations, prominent measures of malingering (TOMM, M-FAST, and SIMS) did not discriminate between groups. Results may mean that these tests may operate differently than intended within a civil litigation context and depending on the type of psychopathology feigned.
dc.description.departmentPsychology, Department of
dc.format.digitalOriginborn digital
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10657/3355
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsThe author of this work is the copyright owner. UH Libraries and the Texas Digital Library have their permission to store and provide access to this work. Further transmission, reproduction, or presentation of this work is prohibited except with permission of the author(s).
dc.subjectMalingering
dc.subjectMalingering
dc.subjectAssessments
dc.subjectSymptom validity
dc.subjectPerformance validity
dc.subjectPerformance measurement
dc.subjectCivil litigation
dc.subjectPersonal injury
dc.subjectMotor vehicle accidents
dc.titleDiagnostic and Construct Validation of Symptom and Performance Validity Tests of Malingering in a Civil Litigation Context
dc.type.dcmiText
dc.type.genreThesis
thesis.degree.collegeCollege of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
thesis.degree.departmentPsychology, Department of
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychology, Clinical
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Houston
thesis.degree.levelMasters
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Arts

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
FOX-THESIS-2018.pdf
Size:
1.73 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt
Size:
4.43 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
LICENSE.txt
Size:
1.81 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download

Collections

Published ETD Collection