ASSESSMENT OF MALINGERING WITH SIMULATION DESIGNS - THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY

Comprehensive forensic evaluations are predicated on the accurate appr aisal of response styles that may affect evaluatees' clinical presenta tion and experts' conclusions associated with psycholegal issues. In t he assessment of malingering, forensic experts often rely heavily on s tandardized measures that have been validated exclusively via analogue research. While such research augments internal validity, the threats to external validity are readily apparent. As the first study of thes e threats, type of incentive (positive versus negative), context (a fa miliar versus unfamiliar scenario), and relevance to the participants was investigated systematically with a between-subjects factorial desi gn. A sample of 231 undergraduates was asked to either (a) feign major depression and given an easily understood description of this disorde r or (b) serve as controls responding honestly. They were administered a brief measure of psychopathology (Hopkins Symptom Checklist; Deroga tis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi 1974) and a recent screen for malingering (Screening Inventory of Malingered Symptoms or SIMS; Smith 1992) in I of 18 experimental conditions. Results suggested that ince ntive had a main effect on the SIMS. More specifically, simulators und er negative incentives appeared more focused in their feigning; they p roduced more bogus depressed symptoms, but fewer symptoms unrelated to depression. Interactions were also observed between context and incen tive, and context and relevance. Implications of these results are exp lored for both analogue research on malingering and current forensic p ractice.