University of Missouri - Saint Louis

The Graduate School

Announcement

An oral examination in defense of the dissertation for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Rachael E. Springman.
M.A. in Psychology, May 2005, University of Missouri - St. Louis
M.A. in Forensics, June 2001, University of Denver
B.A. in Psychology, May, 1999, University of Notre Dame

The Detection of Malingering on Measures of Competency to Stand Trial: A Study of Coached and Uncoached Simulators

Abstract

Evaluations of competency to stand trial serve as the most frequently requested type of forensic evaluation. Despite the court’s need for accurate and credible information, defendants referred for competency evaluations may be motivated to malinger incompetency in order to avoid trial, evade criminal prosecution and responsibility, gain personal liberty, and mitigate their sentences (Rogers, Sewell, Grandjean, & Vitacco, 2002). Furthermore, motivated malingerers can obtain a significant amount of information about tests prior to evaluations, particularly from the Internet and their attorneys. Previous research has demonstrated that coaching on test-taking strategies helps malingerers avoid detection on psychological tests like the MMPI-2 (e.g., Storm & Graham, 2000), but no research to date has examined the effects of test-strategy coaching on competency measures. This 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 without receiving 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 a competency evaluation. 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. MANOVA and profile analysis were employed. As expected, results indicate that both 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.

The findings allow for cautious optimism in the ability of these measures’ malingering screens to detect feigned incompetency, even when individuals receive coaching on how to defeat the measures. Moreover, this study adds to the growing body of literature that underscores the importance of the assessment of malingering as a routine component of competency evaluations.

Defense of Dissertation Committee