The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Base Rates of Malingering and Symptom Exeggeration
Abstract
Base rates of probable malingering and symptom exaggeration are reported from a survey of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology membership. Estimates were based on 33,531 annual cases involved in personal injury, (n = 6,371). disability (n = 3,688), criminal (n = 1,341), or medical (n = 22,131) matters. Base rates did not differ among geographic regions or practice settings, but were related to the proportion of plaintiff versus defense referrals. Reported rates would be 2-4% higher if variance due to referral source was controlled. Twenty-nine percent of personal injury, 30% of disability, 19% of criminal, and 8% of medical cases involved probable malingering and symptom exaggeration. Thirty-nine percent of mild head injury, 35% of fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue, 31% of chronic pain, 27% of neurotoxic, and 22% of electrical injury claims resulted in diagnostic impressions of probable malingering. Diagnosis was supported by multiple sources of evidence, including severity (65% of cases) or pattern (64% of cases) of cognitive impairment that was inconsistent with the condition, scores below empirical cutoffs on forced choice tests (57% of cases), discrepancies among records, self-report, and observed behavior (56%), implausible self-reported symptoms in interview (46%), implausible changes in test scores across repeated examinations (45%), and validity scales on objective personality tests (38% of cases).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants1, C. (2009) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854040903155063 · Cited by 869
Neuropsychologists’ Validity Testing Beliefs and Practices: A Survey of North American Professionals
Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597 · Cited by 339
The C factor: cognitive dysfunction as a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology
Abramovitch, A., Short, T., & Schweiger, A. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102007 · Cited by 269
Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment.
McGrath, R. E., Mitchell, M., Kim, B. H., & Hough, L. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019216 · Cited by 282
Identifying students faking ADHD: Preliminary findings and strategies for detection
HARRISON, A., EDWARDS, M., & PARKER, K. (2007) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.03.008 · Cited by 185
Metadata
- Authors
- Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1094-1102
- ISSN
- 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
- 1380-3395
- 1744-411X
- OpenAlex
- W2129065386
- Cited by
- 998
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Base Rates of Malingering and Symptom Exeggeration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1076/jcen.24.8.1094.8379
- The paper
- Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base Rates of Malingering and Symptom Exeggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.24.8.1094.8379
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.