No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Detection of Malingering During Head Injury Litigation. C.R. Reynolds (Ed.). 1997. New York: The Plenum Press. 291 pp., $45.00.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2000
While the fact of litigation in neuropsychological assessment is about as subtle as a horse in a bedroom, it does not necessarily follow that the nature of malingering behaviors is also obvious or that the logic and techniques of malingering assessment have achieved “mature” validity. Despite the dramatic increase in studies on malingering in recent years, detection of malingering in head injury litigation continues to be a challenge for neuropsychologists. Numerous studies, most published since 1994, have attempted to search for the best technique for identifying malingering and/or malingerers. Unfortunately, this effort has been hampered by the lack of clinical data regarding the complexity and diversity of malingering behaviors themselves. In addition, the research is being conducted by clinical neuroscientists who, in various ways, are somewhat unsophisticated in their views of malingering detection statistics, paradigms and proofs (vs. forensic psychologists, maybe?).