Detection of insufficient effort and simulation of cognitive impairment during neuropsychological examination using RBANS and SIMS methods

Czech version

Authors: M. Krejčová ¹; L. Krámská ²
Authors‘ workplace: 1. LF UK, Praha ¹; Oddělení klinické psychologie, Nemocnice Na Homolce, Praha ²
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2024; 87(3): 181-184
Category: Review Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/csbb2024181

Overview

One of the current issues in neuropsychological diagnostics is the detection of simulation of cognitive impairment and inadequate effort during the examination. The reason for the simulation of cognitive impairment or lack of effort may be to obtain various benefits, such as financial, material or attention from others. Different types of methods are used to detect simulation and lack of effort. These include tests of cognitive abilities and tests specifically designed to detect malingering. This article focuses on describing two specific methods and their psychometric properties – The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Within the RBANS neuropsychological test, effort can be assessed using several indicators. SIMS is an inventory that focuses not only on the assessment of simulated cognitive impairment, but also on the assessment of other areas of psychopathology.

Keywords:

Simulation – Cognitive impairment – insufficient effort – neuropsychological diagnostics – RBANS – SIMS

Sources

1. Widows MR, Smith GP. Structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources 2005.

2. Rogers R, Bagby RM, Dickens SE. Structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources 1992.

3. Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E et al. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1998; 20(3): 310– 319. doi: 10.1076/ jcen.20.3.310.823.

4. Miller HA. M-FAST: Miller forensic assessment of symptoms test: professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources 2001.

5. Rogers R, Jackson RL, Sewell KW et al. An examination of the ECST-R as a screen for feigned incompetency to stand trial. Psychol Assess 2004; 16(2): 139– 145. doi: 10.1037/ 1040-3590.16.2.139.

6. Bender SD, Rogers R. Detection of neurocognitive feigning: development of a multi-strategy assessment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2004; 19(1): 49– 60.

7. Tombaugh TN. Test of memory malingering: TOMM. Multi-Health 1996.

8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association 2013.

9. Rogers R, Bender S. Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: The Guildford Press 2018.

10. Boone K. Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: a neuropsychological perspective. New York: Guilford Publications 2021.

11. Schroeder RW, Martin PH. Validity assessment in clinical neuropsychological practice: evaluating and managing noncredible performance. New York: The Guilford Press 2022.

12. Larrabee GJ. Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2012; 18(4): 625– 630. doi: 10.1017/ s135 5617712000240.

13. Heilbronner RL, Sweet JJ, Morgan JE et al. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consen-
sus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. Clin Neuropsychol 2009; 23(7): 1093– 1129. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040903155063.

14. Lu PH, Boone KB, Cozolino L et al. Effectiveness of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and the Meyers and Meyers recognition trial in the detection of suspect effort. Clin Neuropsychol 2003; 17(3): 426– 440. doi: 10.1076/ clin.17.3.426.18083.

15. Silverberg ND, Wertheimer JC, Fichtenberg NL. An effort index for the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS). Clin Neuropsychol 2007; 21(5): 841– 854. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040600850958.

16. Novitski J, Steele S, Karantzoulis S et al. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status effort scale. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2012; 27(2): 190– 195. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ acr119.

17. Axelrod BN, Fichtenberg NL, Millis SR et al. Detecting incomplete effort with digit span from the Wechsler adult intelligence scale – third edition. Clin Neuropsychol 2006; 20(3): 513– 523. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040590967117.

18. Barrash J, Suhr J, Manzel K. Detecting poor effort and malingering with an expanded version of the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLTX): validation with clinical samples. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2004; 26(1): 125– 140. doi: 10.1076/ jcen.26.1.125.23928.

19. Mathias CW, Greve KW, Bianchini KJ et al. Detecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction using the reliable digit span in traumatic brain injury. Assessment 2002; 9(3): 301– 308. doi: 10.1177/ 1073191102009003009.

20. Slick DJ, Iverson GL, Green P. California verbal learning test indicators of suboptimal performance in a sample of head-injury litigants. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2000; 22(5): 569– 579. doi: 10.1076/ 1380-3395(200010)22:5; 1-9;FT569.

21. Duff K, Spering CC, O’Bryant SE et al. The RBANS effort index: base rates in geriatric samples. Appl Neuropsychol 2011; 18(1): 11– 17. doi: 10.1080/ 09084282.2010.
523354.

22. Paulson D, Horner MD, Bachman D. A comparison of four embedded validity indices for the RBANS in a memory disorders clinic. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2015; 30(3): 207– 216. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ acv009.

23. Shura RD, Brearly TW, Rowland JA et al. RBANS validity indices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev 2018; 28(3): 269– 284. doi: 10.1007/ s11065-018-9377-5.

24. Krámská L, Krejčová M. Strukturovaný inventář simulovaných příznaků (SIMS) – česká adaptace. Praha: Hogrefe – Testcentrum 2023.

25. Dandachi-FitzGerald B, Ponds RWHM, Peters MJV et al. Cognitive underperformance and symptom over-reporting in a mixed psychiatric sample. Clin Neuropsychol 2011; 25(5): 812– 828. doi: 10.1080/ 13854046.2011.583280.

26. Smith GP, Burger GK. Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1997; 25(2): 183– 189.

27. Merckelbach H, Smith GP. Diagnostic accuracy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in detecting instructed malingering. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2003; 18(2): 145– 152.

28. Edens JF, Otto RK, Dwyer T. Utility of the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology in identifying persons motivated to malinger psychopathology. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1999; 27(3): 387– 396.

29. Lewis JL, Simcox AM, Berry DTR. Screening for feigned psychiatric symptoms in a forensic sample by using the MMPI-2 and the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology. Psychol Assess 2002; 14(2): 170– 176. doi: 10.1037/ / 1040-3590.14.2.170.

30. Poythress NG, Edens JF, Watkins MM. The relationship between psychopathic personality features and malingering symptoms of major mental illness. Law Hum Behav 2001; 25(6): 567– 582. doi: 10.1023/ a:1012702223
004.