Faculty Bibliography

The challenges of accurate forensic assessment are aggravated when evaluatees have intellectual disabilities. Few studies have addressed the efficacy of forensic assessment in samples diagnosed with an intellectual disability, and those that have typically focus on measures of cognitive effort rather than on feigned psychiatric symptoms. This study focuses on the applicability of the original and revised versions of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) in a sample of participants with genuine intellectual disabilities. The SIRS was administered to 43 individuals diagnosed with intellectual disabilities, all of whom were asked to respond honestly. A considerable proportion of these respondents were misclassified as feigning psychiatric symptoms. These misclassifications were most frequent when the respondents had comorbid psychiatric diagnoses. The updated scoring algorithm of the SIRS-2 generated a rate of misclassifications that was substantially lower but that still exceeded published normative data. The implications for forensic assessment are discussed

Malingering test accuracy is increasingly a major issue in psychology and law. Integrating results across measures might offset limitations of a single test, but the practical benefits of using several tests depend on the extent to which they misclassify the same individuals. Data from 66 evaluatees were used to assess the degree of overlap and consistency of classification among several commonly used malingering instruments. Although correlative data indicated that measures were highly redundant even across symptom domains, classification accuracy analyses revealed that findings based on conjunctions of these scales may not overlap to the degree that the correlations might suggest.