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.

Evaluations of a defendant's competence to stand trial (CST) are probably the most frequently performed forensic evaluations, with estimates in the United States ranging from 60,000 to 70,000 annually. In order for CST evaluations to be considered thorough and accurate, examiners must assess for possible lack of cooperation, feigning, or malingering - the intentional production or gross exaggeration of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychiatric symptoms, motivated by external incentives. Yet, there are accounts that CST examiners often do not assess for negative response bias, and even if they do nevertheless fail to identify a considerable number of examinees that do feign. Assessing Negative Response Bias in Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations 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 book 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. It introduces readers to aspects of the vibrant neuropsychological response style literature, an area many forensic psychologists appear to have overlooked. Additionally, it offers recommendations for research and policy regarding the parameters of CST assessment.

"Widely used by practitioners, researchers, and students--and now thoroughly revised with 70% new material--this is the most authoritative, comprehensive book on malingering and related response styles. Leading experts translate state-of-the-art research into clear, usable strategies for detecting deception in a wide range of psychological and psychiatric assessment contexts, including forensic settings. The book examines dissimulation across multiple domains: mental disorders, cognitive impairments, and medical complaints. It describes and critically evaluates evidence-based applications of multiscale inventories, other psychological measures, and specialized methods. Applications are discussed for specific populations, such as sex offenders, children and adolescents, and law enforcement personnel. Key Words/Subject Areas: malingering, deception, deceptive, feigning, dissimulation, feigned cognitive impairment, feigned conditions, defensiveness, response styles, response bias, impression management, false memories, forensic psychological assessments, forensic assessments, clinical assessments, forensic mental health, forensic psychological evaluations, forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, psychological testing and assessment, detection strategies, expert testimony, expert witnesses, family law, child custody disputes, child protection, child welfare Audience: Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists; other mental health practitioners involved in interviewing and assessment, including clinical psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors. Also of interest to legal professionals"--

Widely regarded as the standard reference in the field, this book provides essential tools for understanding and assessing malingering and other response styles in forensic and clinical contexts. An integrating theme is the systematic application of detection strategies as conceptually grounded, empirically validated methods that bridge different measures and populations. Special topics include considerations in working with children and youth. From leading practitioners and researchers, the volume reviews the scientific knowledge base and offers best-practice guidelines for maximizing the accuracy of psychological and psychiatric evaluations.

Competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations are among the most frequent forensic psychological evaluations performed each year. The courts depend on these evaluations to consider if a criminal defendant is factually and rationally appreciative of the legal process and rationally able to collaborate with defense counsel in forming a defense. Malingering is always a consideration which muddies the waters of competency evaluation. The current literature review examines the nature of the malingering construct as it relates to CST evaluations. Emerging research results indicates that malingering is better considered on a continuum or as a dimensional construct versus a categorical model. The implications of this on CST evaluation and future testing development is discussed with a call for additional research to further establish the dimensionality of the malingering construct.