Intraindividual variability as an indicator of malingering in head injury

The utility of various measures of malingering was evaluated using an analog design in which half the participants (composed of three groups: naive healthy people, professionals working with head-injured people, individuals who suffered a head injury but not currently in litigation) were asked to try their best and the remainder was asked to feign believable injury. Participants were assessed with the Reliable Digit Span (RDS) task, the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), and the Computerized Dot Counting Test (CDCT) on three separate occasions in order to determine whether repeat administration of tests improves prediction. The results indicated that regardless of an individualʹs experience, consideration of both level of performance (particularly on forced-choice symptom validity tasks) and intraindividual variability holds considerable promise for the detection of malingering.