Daubert, cognitive malingering, and test accuracy.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Mossman D;Mossman D
  • Source:
    Law and human behavior [Law Hum Behav] 2003 Jun; Vol. 27 (3), pp. 229-49.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Legal Case
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: American Psychological Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7801255 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0147-7307 (Print) Linking ISSN: 01477307 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Law Hum Behav Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: 2012- : Washington, DC : American Psychological Association
      Original Publication: New York, Plenum Press.
    • Subject Terms:
      Psychological Tests*; Cognition Disorders/*diagnosis ; Malingering/*diagnosis; Bayes Theorem ; Cognition Disorders/epidemiology ; Humans ; Malingering/epidemiology ; Models, Statistical ; Predictive Value of Tests ; ROC Curve
    • Abstract:
      Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) held that trial judges should permit expert scientific testimony only when "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid, and ... properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Vallabhajosula and van Gorp ("V & vG," 2001) have suggested that when the Daubert standard is applied to tests for malingered cognitive deficits, courts should deem admissible only results that meet this mathematical standard: assuming a pretest probability of .3, a "positive" score on the malingering test should yield a posttest probability of at least .8. This paper shows that V & vG's criterion may lead to misunderstandings about the kind of information maligering measures provide. After reviewing cases that have discussed both the Daubert decision and malingered cognitive deficits, this paper uses data from the Test of Memory Malingering (T.N. Tombaugh, 1996) to provide a general characterization of the mathematical properties of malingering measures. The paper then describes how pretest knowledge about malingering is combined with knowledge about a test's performance to generate a posttest probability of malingering. The results can help mental health experts respond to Daubert-inspired challenges to conclusions based on malingering measures.
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20030611 Date Completed: 20030708 Latest Revision: 20191107
    • Publication Date:
      20231215
    • Accession Number:
      10.1023/a:1023437122752
    • Accession Number:
      12794962