Lucy Akehurst: Detecting Malingering: An Evaluation of a New Tool to Aid Judgements of Credibility in the Medico-Legal Setting

Duration: 19 mins 21 secs

Share this media item:

Embed this media item:

<iframe width="_width_" height="_height_" src="https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2077378/embed" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Choose size:

About this item

Available Formats

About this item

Description:	(No description)


Created:	2015-09-28 17:42
Collection:	Decepticon 2015
Publisher:	University of Cambridge
Copyright:	Dr S. Van der Zee
Language:	eng (English)
Keywords:	Deception; Malingering; Tool development;


Abstract:	Clinical psychologists and other health professionals are often requested to act as expert witnesses in Court. They are required to assess, and report upon, the reliability of the accounts of physical and psychological symptoms made by their clients. This study investigated the effectiveness of a checklist drawing upon relevant literature on lying and malingering to aid the detection of exaggeration of physical and psychological symptoms. Sixty-four participants were cast as interviewers and assigned to either a ‘checklist’ or ‘no checklist’ condition. Another 64 volunteers were assigned to either a ‘truth teller’ or ‘malingerer’ role and, after undergoing a cold pressor procedure, were interviewed about their experience. The interviewers with a checklist drawn from the literature were asked to rate the presence of 28 checklist items on 5- point Likert scales and to indicate whether or not they believed their interviewee was truthful or exaggerating his/her symptoms. The interviewers without the checklist were asked to simply indicate whether their interviewee was truthful or exaggerating. Evaluators who were not given the checklist did not classify their interviewees at a level significantly better than chance. Those using the checklist achieved an overall hit rate of 70% (75% for truthful accounts and 66% for exaggerated accounts of symptoms). Signal detection analysis supported the finding that those with the checklist showed greater discriminability. Eight checklist items significantly discriminated between truth tellers and malingerers. Furthermore the total checklist score was significantly higher for exaggerated accounts than for truthful accounts. Results suggest that a checklist based on the literatures into lying and malingering warrants further investigation. Such a tool would be useful as an aid for expert witnesses called to provide informed opinion on the likelihood that a claimant is exaggerating, malingering or otherwise misrepresenting difficulties.

Abstract:

Clinical psychologists and other health professionals are often requested to act as expert witnesses in Court. They are required to assess, and report upon, the reliability of the accounts of physical and psychological symptoms made by their clients. This study investigated the effectiveness of a checklist drawing upon relevant literature on lying and malingering to aid the detection of exaggeration of physical and psychological symptoms. Sixty-four participants were cast as interviewers and assigned to either a ‘checklist’ or ‘no checklist’ condition. Another 64 volunteers were assigned to either a ‘truth teller’ or ‘malingerer’ role and, after undergoing a cold pressor procedure, were interviewed about their experience. The interviewers with a checklist drawn from the literature were asked to rate the presence of 28 checklist items on 5- point Likert scales and to indicate whether or not they believed their interviewee was truthful or exaggerating his/her symptoms. The interviewers without the checklist were asked to simply indicate whether their interviewee was truthful or exaggerating. Evaluators who were not given the checklist did not classify their interviewees at a level significantly better than chance. Those using the checklist achieved an overall hit rate of 70% (75% for truthful accounts and 66% for exaggerated accounts of symptoms). Signal detection analysis supported the finding that those with the checklist showed greater discriminability. Eight checklist items significantly discriminated between truth tellers and malingerers. Furthermore the total checklist score was significantly higher for exaggerated accounts than for truthful accounts. Results suggest that a checklist based on the literatures into lying and malingering warrants further investigation. Such a tool would be useful as an aid for expert witnesses called to provide informed opinion on the likelihood that a claimant is exaggerating, malingering or otherwise misrepresenting difficulties.

Available Formats

Format	Quality	Bitrate	Size
MPEG-4 Video	480x360	207.02 kbits/sec	29.34 MB	View	Download
WebM	480x360	179.26 kbits/sec	25.43 MB	View	Download
iPod Video	480x360	486.67 kbits/sec	68.97 MB	View	Download
MP3	44100 Hz	249.73 kbits/sec	35.45 MB	Listen	Download
Auto *	(Allows browser to choose a format it supports)