ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Malingering assessment after severe traumatic brain injury in forensic psychology with a potential embedded symptom validity indicator of Symptom Checklist 90.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Malingering of neuropsychological damage is common among traumatic brain injury patients pursuing disability compensation in forensic contexts. There is an urgent need to explore differences in neuropsychological assessment outcomes with different levels of cooperation. Methods: A total of 420 participants with severe traumatic brain injury were classified into malingering group, partial cooperation group, and complete cooperation group according to the Binomial forced-choice digit memory test. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, event-related potential component, and Symptom Checklist 90 were applied subsequently to assess the psychological status of participants. Results: Participants in the malingering group presented lower scores in the binomial forced-choice digit memory test and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, lower P3 amplitude, and simultaneously higher scores in the Symptom Checklist 90 than the other two groups. The actual intelligence quotient of participants with malingering tendencies ranged mostly between normal and marginal damage, and they often reported elevated whole scale scores in the Symptom Checklist 90. The Cooperation Index (defined as the ratio of positive symptom distress index to global severity index, CI) was proposed and validated to function as an embedded validity indicator of the Symptom Checklist 90, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.938. When valued at 1.28, CI has the highest classification ability in differentiating malingering from non-malingering. Combined with the CI and P3 amplitude, the area under the ROC curve for malingering diagnosis further reached 0.952. Conclusion: Any non-optimal effort in a forensic context will lead to unexpected deviation in psychology evaluation results. CI is a potential candidate to act as an embedded validity indicator of the Symptom Checklist 90. The combination of CI and P3 amplitude can help to identify malingering in participants after severe traumatic brain injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.