Search

OBJECTIVE Emerging research suggests that fear and avoidance are associated with not only physical symptoms, but also cognitive functioning. The concept of cogniphobia describes the fear and avoidance of cognitively effortful tasks to avoid the onset or worsening of symptoms. Extant studies provide preliminary evidence for associations between cogniphobia and validity testing. However, less is known about the subcomponents of cogniphobia. This study investigated the relationship of cogniphobia subcomponents to validity testing and psychological presentations. METHOD Participants included 171 adults from an archival database who had completed measures of cogniphobia and psychological symptom reports as part of a larger neuropsychological study. The sample was classified as scoring above or below published cutoffs on performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs), consistent with current research/recommendations. RESULTS Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-factor model of cogniphobia, with Avoidance and Dangerousness as subcomponents. Logistic regression analyses identified Avoidance as the strongest predictor of scores falling in the invalid range on PVTs and SVTs, as well as the presence of external incentives. After excluding participants who fell in the invalid range on SVTs, only Avoidance significantly predicted report of somatic complaints. CONCLUSIONS Cogniphobia, especially the avoidance of cognitive exertion component, is associated with performance in the invalid range on both PVTs and SVTs and is also related to report of somatic concerns when controlling for beliefs that cognitive exertion is dangerous. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures.

Objectives:The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of psychological variables to cognitive performance validity test (PVT) results in mixed forensic and nonforensic clinical samples.Methods:Participants included 183 adults who underwent comprehensive neuropsychological examination. Criterion groups were formed, that is, Credible Group or Noncredible Group, based upon their performance on the Word Memory Test and other stand-alone and embedded PVT measures.Results:Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified three significant predictors of cognitive performance validity. These included two psychological constructs, for example, Cogniphobia (perception that cognitive effort will exacerbate neurological symptoms), and Symptom Identity (perception that current symptoms are the result of illness or injury), and one contextual factor (forensic). While there was no interaction between these factors, elevated scores were most often observed in the forensic sample, suggesting that these independently contributing intrinsic psychological factors are more likely to occur in a forensic environment.Conclusions:Illness perceptions were significant predictors of cognitive performance validity particularly when they reached very elevated levels. Extreme elevations were more common among participants in the forensic sample, and potential reasons for this pattern are explored. (JINS, 2018,24, 1–11)

Few studies have examined life history and cognitive characteristics unique to female homicide offenders. Understanding these characteristics could aid in risk assessment for extreme violence in this group of offenders. The current study utilized t-tests or chi-square tests to compare 27 female and 81 male homicide offenders on psychiatric, neurologic, criminal, and cognitive characteristics. Additionally, we explored the role of abuse history in female offenders through Kruskal-Wallis or Fisher's exact tests. Results indicate that in comparison with male counterparts, females are more likely to have history of mood disorder, borderline personality disorder, and abuse. Cognitively, female homicide offenders exhibit circumscribed cognitive impairment in verbal abilities and perform similarly to male homicide offenders across most cognitive tasks. Within the female offender group, history of sexual abuse is associated with higher rates of impulsive homicide and poorer verbal abilities. These findings provide preliminary evidence for distinct factors associated with homicide in women.

Evidence-based forensic psychological opinions require thorough and accurate information about examinees. Psychometric instruments can facilitate diagnostic decision making, but they rely on examinees to respond honestly to questions and put forth good effort on cognitive tests. Given the strong incentives for examinees in psychological injury cases to minimize prior problems and emphasize postaccident or posttrauma problems, the assessment of validity as part of forensic psychological evaluations is essential. Best practices in forensic psychology have their foundation in ethical principles. The purpose of this position statement is to promote ethical psychological practice in legal contexts by reviewing validity assessment issues and their ethical foundations. Because no previously published document focused specifically on symptom and performance validity assessment in psychological injury evaluations performed in forensic contexts, such a position statement provided by a professional organization devoted to the interface of psychological injury and law was needed to inform and guide practitioners and to educate other interested parties. The position statement emphasizes (a) the need for ethical practice in assessing validity, (b) consideration of factors such as culture and functional limitations, and (c) the importance of adopting a comprehensive, impartial, and scientific approach to validity assessment. The position statement acknowledges areas of differing opinions and the need for further research.