Cited by 869Deception detection and forensic psychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering

Open access
Heilbronner, Robert L., Sweet, Jerry J., Morgan, Joel E., Larrabee, Glenn J., Millis, Scott R., Conference Participants1·2009·The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Abstract

During the past two decades clinical and research efforts have led to increasingly sophisticated and effective methods and instruments designed to detect exaggeration or fabrication of neuropsychological dysfunction, as well as somatic and psychological symptom complaints. A vast literature based on relevant research has emerged and substantial portions of professional meetings attended by clinical neuropsychologists have addressed topics related to malingering (Sweet, King, Malina, Bergman, & Simmons, 2002). Yet, despite these extensive activities, understanding the need for methods of detecting problematic effort and response bias and addressing the presence or absence of malingering has proven challenging for practitioners. A consensus conference, comprised of national and international experts in clinical neuropsychology, was held at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) for the purposes of refinement of critical issues in this area. This consensus statement documents the current state of knowledge and recommendations of expert clinical neuropsychologists and is intended to assist clinicians and researchers with regard to the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13854040903155063

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of critical importance in clinical and research settings evaluating individuals with TBI is need to identify invalid responses.

    “Of critical importance in clinical and research settings evaluting individuals with TBI is the need to identify invalid responses (Heilbronner et al., 2009; Larrabee, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants1, C.
Corresponding author
Sweet, Jerry J.
Venue
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Published
2009-10
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
1093-1129
ISSN
  • 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
  • 1385-4046
  • 1744-4144
OpenAlex
W2036128670
Cited by
869
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 77 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 62
FWCI
63.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UST Research Online (University of St. Thomas - Minnesota) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
malingering, effort detection, response bias, neuropsychological assessment, symptom exaggeration
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Humans, Deception, Malingering, Medical History Taking, Neuropsychological Tests, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics

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