Measurement of Malingering – Coin in the Hand Test

Czech version

Authors: M. Preiss ^1,2; T. Příhodová ^1,3; M. Raisová ^1,3; J. Maliňáková ¹; N. Minarčíková ⁴; J. Marková ⁵; D. Krámský ⁵
Authors‘ workplace: Národní ústav duševního zdraví Klecany ¹; University of New York in Prague ²; 3. LF UK v Praze ³; Pedagogická fakulta LF UK v Praze ⁴; Policejní akademie ČR, Praha ⁵
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113(3): 307-315
Category: Original Paper
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2017307

Tato studie je výsledkem badatelské činnosti podporované Grantovou agenturou České republiky, reg. č. 15-03615S, dále je studie výsledkem badatelské činnosti podporované projektem číslo LO1611 za finanční podpory MŠMT v rámci programu NPU I.

Overview

The purpose of this study is to introduce and bring into the clinical practice new screening tool Coin in the Hand Test for detection of simulating disability or weak results in psychological assessment.

Aim:
The goal of this study was to define the maximal performance in a general and clinical population and to determine the extent to which participants in experimental group are capable of faking weakened performance so that this fraud would not be recognized.

Material and methods:
The test Coin in the Hand Test was studied on a non-psychiatric group of participants (N = 153) to determine the ability to adapt to three different scenarios: 1 = the best possible performance; 2 = acquiring disability pension; 3 = prolonging sick leave. In the second study the test was administered individually to a group of hospitalized psychiatric patients.

Results:
The performance score for each scenario significantly differed suggesting to a good ability of experimental group to adapt to the instruction. The mean performance score for the maximal performance was close to the maximum of 10 points (M = 9,98; SD = 0,13; 9– 10), while for the serious faking it was the lowest (M = 4,87; SD = 2,37; 0–10). Score for moderate faking was found in between the previous two values (M = 6,85; SD = 1,72; 1–10). The results of the individual assessment done on a group of psychiatric patients corresponded with the results of the group with a scenario for the best possible performance.

Conclusion:
The presented very good ability to differentiate between faking and honest individuals is an encouragement for inclusion of this test into the clinical practice.

Key words:
Coin in the Hand Test – malingering – insufficient effort

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Chinese summary - 摘要

测量 - 手测试中的硬币

本研究的目的是引入临床实践中的一种新的筛查工具，在手测试中用于检测模拟残疾或在手测试中用于检测模拟残疾或心理评估结果较差的硬币。

目标：

这项研究的目标是定义一般和临床人群的最大表现，并确定实验组参与者是否有能力欺骗性能下降的程度，从而无法识别这种欺诈。

材料和方法：

在非精神科参与者组（N = 153）中研究了手部测试中的测试硬币，以确定适应三种不同场景的能力：1 =最佳性能; 2 =获得残疾养恤金; 3 =延长病假在第二项研究中，试验单独给予一组住院的精神病患者。

结果：

每个场景的表现分数显着不同，表明实验组适应指令的良好能力。最高表现的平均表现得分接近10分（M = 9.98; SD = 0.，13; 9 - 10），而对于严重的假冒，则最低（M = 4 ，87; SD = 2.37; 0-10）。在前两个值之间发现中度假的得分（M = 6.85; SD = 1,72; 1-10）。对一组精神病患者进行的个别评估结果与该组的结果相符，并提供了最佳表现的情景。

结论：

患者表现出非常好的区分假冒和诚实个体的能力，这是鼓励鼓励将该测试纳入临床实践的鼓励。

关键词：

手中的硬币测试 - 磨炼 - 努力不足

Sources

1. Reiner M. Román o Ivanu Blatném. Praha: Torst 2014.

2. Praško J, Seifertová D. Předstírané poruchy a simulace. Med Praxi 2008;5(3):128– 32.

3. Merten T, Dandachi-FitzGerald B, Hall V, et al. Symptom validity assessment in European countries: development and state of the art. Clínica Y Salud 2013;24(3):129– 38.

4. Iverson GI. Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Appl Neuropsychol 2006;13(2):77– 90.

5. Preiss M, Preiss J, Krámská L, et al. Nedostatečná snaha podat dobrý výkon. Psychiatrie 2012;16(4):202– 9.

6. Preiss M, Mačudová G. Dotazník žádoucího stylu odpovídání (BIDR-CZ). Psychiatrie 2013;17(2):59– 64.

7. Kapur N. The Coin in the Hand Test: a new bedside test for the detection of malingering in patients with suspected memory disorder. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994;57(3):385– 6.

8. Slick DJ, Sherman EM, Iverson GL. Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. Clin Neuropsychol 1999;13(4):545– 61.

9. Baker GA, Hanley JR, Jackson HF, et al. Detecting the faking of amnesia: performance differences between simulators and patients with memory impairment. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1993;15(5):668– 84.

10. Hanley JR, Baker GA, Ledson S. Detecting the faking of amnesia: a comparison of the effectiveness of three different techniques for distinguishing simulators from patients with amnesia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1999;21(1):59– 69.

11. Cochrane HJ, Baker GA, Meudell PR. Simulating a memory impairment: can amnesics implicitly outperform simulators? Br J Clin Psychol 1998;37(1):31– 48.

12. Kelly PJ, Baker GA, van den Broek MD, et al. The detection of malingering in memory performance: the sensitivity and specificity of four measures in a UK population. Br J Clin Psychol 2005;44(3):333– 41.

13. Wiggins EC, Brandt J. The detection of simulated amnesia. Law Hum Behav 1988;12(1):57– 78.

14. Rudman N, Oyebode JR, Jones CA, et al. An investigation into the validity of effort tests in a working age dementia population. Aging Ment Health 2011;15(1):47– 57. doi: 10.1080/ 13607863.2010.508770.

15. Schroeder RW, Peck CP, Buddin WH jr, et al. The Coin in the Hand Test and dementia: more evidence for a screening test for neurocognitive symptom exaggeration. Cogn Behav Neurol 2012;25(3):139– 43. doi: 10.1097/ WNN.0b013e31826b71c1.

16. McCarter RJ, Walton NH, Brooks DN, et al. Effort testing in contemporary UK neuropsychological practice. Clin Neuropsychol 2009;23(6):1050– 66. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040802665790.

17. Heilbronner RL, Sweet JJ, Morgan JE, et al. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, repons bias, and malingering. Clin Neuropsychol 2009;23(7):1093– 129. doi: 10.1080/ 138 54040903155063.

18. Kemp S, Coughlan AK, Rowbottom C, et al. The base rate of effort test failure in patients with medically unexplained symptoms. J Psychosom Res 2008;65(4):319– 25. doi: 10.1016/ j.jpsychores.2008.02.010.

19. Haines ME, Norris MP. Detecting the malingering of cognitive deficits: an update. Neuropsychol Rev 1995;5(2):125– 48.