The present study investigated the detection of coached and uncoached malingering on two measures of competency to stand trial: the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial - Revised (ECST-R). Using a simulation research design, undergraduates (n = 101) were randomly assigned into Control (instructed to respond honestly), Uncoached Malingerer (instructed to feign incompetency but did not receive any tips to elude detection), and Coached Malingerer groups (instructed to feign incompetency and received tips to elude detection) and presented with a hypothetical criminal case scenario that required them to undergo an evaluation of their competency to stand trial. Scores on the GCCT and the ECST-R Factual Scale served as indicators of competency, while scores on the GCCT Atypical Presentation (AP) and ECST-R Atypical Presentation (ATP) scales served as indicators of malingering. As expected, results indicate that the two malingering groups appeared markedly impaired on overall competency scores in comparison to the Control group. Furthermore, the two malingering groups appeared markedly elevated on malingering scale scores in comparison to the Control group. Contrary to expectations, test strategy coaching exerted little impact on competency and malingering scale scores. Both malingering scales effectively discriminated between malingerers and honest responders.

"Are They Faking it? A Look at Malingering Incompetency to Stand Trial" is an educational piece written to provide the forensic psychology arena; the criminal justice system, and scholars with an overview of malingering. The motivation of why a person may malinger varies. Individuals may malinger in an attempt to avoid pain, or to seek or obtain something for personal advantage or benefit. Malingering psychological symptoms has become big business in civil cases and the disability industry. This book recommends various psychological testing instruments and strategies to detect malingering. This is a must read for the legal professional and the psychology professional who conducts psychological testing for criminal and civil purposes.

Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) has grown into a specialization informed by research and professional guidelines. This series presents up-to-date information on the most important and frequently conducted forms of FMHA. The 19 topical volumes address best approaches to practice for particular types of evaluation in the criminal, civil, and juvenile/family areas. Each volume contains a thorough discussion of the relevant legal and psychological concepts, followed by a step-by-step description of the assessment process from preparing for the evaluation to writing the report and testifying in court. Volumes include the following helpful features: - Boxes that zero in on important information for use in evaluations - Tips for best practice and cautions against common pitfalls - Highlighting of relevant case law and statutes - Separate list of assessment tools for easy reference - Helpful glossary of key terms for the particular topic In making recommendations for best practice, authors consider empirical support, legal relevance, and consistency with ethical and professional standards. These volumes offer invaluable guidance for anyone involved in conducting or using forensic evaluations.

This work provides readers with a comprehensive guide to assessing whether a defendant has feigned mental impairment during a competency to stand trial evaluation, or simply did not put forth his/her best effort. This text reviews the literature on assessing feigning and negative response bias, with particular focus on issues, tests and data relevant to CST evaluations, and examines proposed criteria and statistical methods of determining and classifying assessment results.