Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether negative validity test findings should be used in the Bayesian aggregate along with positive test findings for the determination of malingering as the condition of interest (COI). Method: Evidence-based diagnostic methods for conditions in neuropsychology and medicine were reviewed for comparison with their use in cases of malingering. Logical and Bayesian analyses of these cases were applied. A case study showed that negative validity test findings did not indicate “good effort”. Results: Deception about illness is fundamentally different from other constructs/diseases in evidence-based medicine and neuropsychology. This is because deception involves a deliberate process that may involve coaching, claimant research, and/or focusing the deception on one aspect (e.g., slowness) as opposed to other neurocognitive problems (e.g., memory). Comparatively, other conditions in medicine and neuropsychology are unlikely to be manipulated by the patient. Conclusions: The assertion by Frederick (2015) and Black, Necrason, and Omasta (2016) that both positive and negative validity test findings must be used together in the aggregate does not stand up to this comparative scrutiny. The fundamental assumption by these authors that a negative test finding concerning malingering represents “good effort” is flawed; it simply represents lack of evidence of malingering, which cannot be construed as evidence of lack of malingering. We recommend that in forensic determination of malingering, negative validity test findings should not be used in a Bayesian aggregation. This conclusion is consistent with current practices in the field.

中文翻译：

---

欺骗是不同的：有效性检验结果阴性不能为“努力”提供“证据”

摘要

目的

本文的目的是确定是否应该在贝叶斯聚合体中使用阴性有效性测试结果以及阳性测试结果来确定将假冒作为关注条件（COI）。方法：对基于证据的神经心理学和医学疾病诊断方法进行了综述，以与在恶病案件中的应用进行比较。对这些案例进行了逻辑和贝叶斯分析。案例研究表明，阴性有效性测试结果并不表示“努力”。结果：对疾病的欺骗从根本上不同于循证医学和神经心理学中的其他构造/疾病。这是因为欺骗涉及故意的过程，该过程可能涉及指导，索赔人研究和/或将欺骗集中在一个方面（例如，缓慢），而不是其他神经认知问题（例如，记忆）。相比之下，患者不太可能操纵医学和神经心理学领域的其他疾病。结论：Frederick（2015）以及Black，Necrason和Omasta（2016）的断言必须将阳性和阴性有效性测试结果同时使用，这并不能接受这种比较性审查。这些作者的基本假设是，关于作假不良的负面测试结果表示“努力”。它只是表示缺乏恶意的证据，不能解释为缺乏恶意的证据。我们建议在法医确定犯罪行为时，贝叶斯聚合不应使用阴性有效性测试结果。该结论与该领域的当前实践是一致的。