Download PDF
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2017; 85(01): 17-33
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-116681
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Beschwerdenvalidierung in der versicherungsmedizinischen Begutachtung

Symptom Validation in Independent Medical Evaluations
Carole Keppler
1   Forensisch-Psychiatrische Klinik – Forschung Forensik Neurophysiologie, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel
,
Andrea Maria Plohmann
2   N/A, Praxis für Neuropsychologie und Psychotherapie, Basel
,
Marlon Pflueger
1   Forensisch-Psychiatrische Klinik – Forschung Forensik Neurophysiologie, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel
,
Kristin Rabovsky
3   Forensisch-Psychiatrische Klinik – Versicherungsmedizin, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel
,
Wolf Langewitz
4   Psychosomatik – Innere Medizin, Universitätsspital Basel
,
Ralph Mager
3   Forensisch-Psychiatrische Klinik – Versicherungsmedizin, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 January 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hohe Prävalenzraten von nicht authentischen Beschwerden in der versicherungsmedizinischen Begutachtung weisen auf das Risiko hin, dass in einer Gesellschaft zur Verfügung gestellte und limitierte geldwerte Leistungen nicht zielkonform eingesetzt werden. Es liegt dabei wesentlich in der Verantwortung der Gutachter, in geeigneter Form eine Beschwerdenvalidierung zu erbringen, um dem Rechtsanwender eine zutreffende Entscheidungsgrundlage zu bieten und medizinischen Qualitätskriterien gerecht zu werden. Traditionell geschieht dies im Wesentlichen in einer nicht standardisierten Konsistenzprüfung auf dem Hintergrund der klinischen Untersuchungsergebnisse in Abgleich mit der Aktenlage. Die nicht gesicherte Validität dieses Vorgehens mit hoher Abhängigkeit von individueller Expertise, Datenlage und Haltung hat internationale Fachgesellschaften in jüngerer Zeit dazu veranlasst, Leitlinien mit ihren Empfehlungen zu öffnen für eine standardisiertere Erfassung der Beschwerdenvalidität. Die am besten evaluierten Methoden und Instrumente dazu werden in der vorliegenden Arbeit vorgestellt. Dabei wird versucht, ihre Validität insbesondere in Bezug auf die Anwendung im Begutachtungskontext nach der aktuellen Datenlage darzustellen. Die Autoren kommen zu dem Schluss, dass eine lege artis durchgeführte strukturierte Beschwerdenvalidierung die Qualität klinischer Urteile erheblich verbessern kann. Die qualifizierte Integration dieser zusätzlich erhobenen Befunde in eine psychologische oder ärztliche Expertise ist jedoch anspruchsvoll und bedarf einer weiteren wissenschaftlichen Begleitung. Einer mechanischen Beurteilung nach Punktwerten gilt es vorzubeugen.

Abstract

High prevalence rates of non-authentic complaints identified by experts in the field of insurance medicine draw attention to the risk of services, which are of limited availability and financially compensated, being used in ways that are not goal-oriented. Therefore, symptom validity testing has become a growing issue to prevent non-targeted monetary compensations. This paper outlines the best-evaluated methods and instruments. Based on the data currently available, their validity, in particular in the context of medico-legal assessment, is assessed. It is concluded that symptom validity assessment allows inferences about the degree of certainty of clinical judgements on the authenticity of reported symptoms. Thus, the application of the suggested instruments enhances significantly the quality of medical and psychological expertise. However, the integration of the additional results into the overall assessment is challenging and needs to be further clarified.

Schlüsselwörter

Beschwerdenvalidierung - Performanzvalidierung - Begutachtung - Versicherungsmedizin

Key words

symptom validity testing - performance validity - independent medical evaluation - insurance medicine
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Huber M. Aspekte der Berufsunfähigkeit bei psychosomatischen Erkrankungen. Versicherungsmedizin 2000; 52 (02) 66-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Stadtland C. et al. Kriterien zur Beurteilung der quantitativen Leistungseinschränkung bei der Begutachtung funktioneller körperlicher Störungen. Eine Literaturübersicht. Versicherungsmedizin 2003; 55 (03) 111-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schneider W. et al. Berufliche Leistungsfähigkeit. Begutachtung bei psychischen und psychosomatischen Erkrankungen. Psychotherapeut 2010; 55 (05) 373-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 OECD. Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities about Mental Health and Work. Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Ott W. Bade S. Wapf B. Nicht zielkonforme Leistungen in der Invalidenversicherung: Bedeutung und Grössenordnung. Bern: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kool J. et al. Der Einsatz von Beschwerdenvalidierungstests in der IV-Abklärung. Bern: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Ekman P. O’Sullivan M. Who can catch a liar?. Am Psychol 1991; 46 (09) 913-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Trueblood W. Binder LM. Psychologists’ accuracy in identifying neuropsychological test protocols of clinical malingerers. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 1997; 12 (01) 13-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Aamondt MG. Custer H. Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner 2006; 15 (01) 6-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bartlett MS. et al. Automatic decoding of facial movements reveals deceptive pain expressions. Curr Biol 2014; 24 (07) 738-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cohn A. Fehr E. Marechal MA. Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature 2014; 516: 86-U190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Goldfarb L. Aisenberg D. Henik A. Think the thought, walk the walk – Social priming reduces the Stroop effect. Cognition 2011; 118 (02) 193-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zedelius CM. et al. A new perspective on human reward research: How consciously and unconsciously perceived reward information influences performance. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 2014; 14 (02) 493-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Espeland A. Vetti N. Krakenes J. Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images. BMC Med Imaging 2013; 13: 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khan L. et al. Inter-rater reliability between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons on computed tomography imaging features of spinal metastases. Curr Oncol 2011; 18 (06) e282-e287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Carrino JA. et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009; 250 (01) 161-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jarvik JG. Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009; 250 (01) 15-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Merten T. Beschwerdenvalidierung bei der Begutachtung kognitiver und psychischer Störungen. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2011; 79 (02) 102-116
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dohrenbusch R. Symptom- und Beschwerdevalidierung chronifizierter Schmerzen in sozialmedizinischer Begutachtung. Teil I: Terminologische und methodologische Zugänge. Schmerz 2009; 23 (03) 231-234, 236–240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Iverson GL. Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Appl Neuropsychol 2006; 13 (02) 77-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Merten T. Merckelbach H. Symptom validity testing in somatoform and dissociative disorders: A critical review. Psychological Injury and Law 2013; 6: 122-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rogers R. Clinical assessment of Malingering and Deception. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Larrabee GJ. Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. Clin Neuropsychol 2003; 17 (03) 410-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Slick DJ. Sherman EM. Iverson GL. Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. Clin Neuropsychol 1999; 13 (04) 545-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mittenberg W. et al. Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2002; 24 (08) 1094-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Merten T. Friedel E. Stevens A. Eingeschränkte Kooperativität in der neurologisch-psychiatrischen Begutachtung: Schätzungen zur Auftretenshäufigkeit an einer Begutachtungspopulation. Versicherungsmedizin 2006; 58 (01) 19-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stevens A. et al. Malingering and uncooperativeness in psychiatric and psychological assessment: prevalence and effects in a German sample of claimants. Psychiatry Res 2008; 157 (01) 191-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Greve KW. et al. Prevalence of malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico-legal context. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90 (07) 1117-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Strebel M. Brusis T. Zur Problematik der Simulation und Aggravation in der HNO-ärztlichen Begutachtung. HNO 2010; 58: 126-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hartman DE. The unexamined lie is a lie worth fibbing: neuropsychological malingering and the Word Memory Test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2002; 17 (07) 709-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dohrenbusch R. Merten T. Psychologische Mess- und Testverfahren. Aussagekraft in der sozialmedizinischen Begutachtung. Psychotherapeut 2010; 55 (05) 389-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rogers R. Harrell EH. Liff CD. Feigning Neuropsychological Impairment – a Critical-Review of Methodological and Clinical Considerations. Clinical Psychology Review 1993; 13 (03) 255-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tombaugh TN. Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Rey A. L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris; 1958
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Boone KB. Lu P. Herzberg D. The Dot Counting Test™ (DCT™). Torrance (CA): Western Psychological Services (WPS); 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Boone KB. Sensitivity and specificity of the Rey Dot Counting Test in patients with suspect effort and various clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2002; 17 (07) 625-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Green P. Green’s Word Memory Test. User’s Manual. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Gorissen M. Sanz JC. Schmand B. Effort and cognition in schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 2005; 78 (02) 199-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Green P. Medical Symptom Validity Test for Windows. User’s Manual and Program. 2003, revised 2005, Edmonton: Green’s Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Green P. Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test for Windows. User’s Manual. Edmonton: Green’s Publishing; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Schmand B. Lindeboom J. Amsterdam Short Term Memory Test. Amsterdamer Kurzzeitgedächtnistest. Manual. Handanweisung. Leiden: PITS; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Schroeder RW. Reliable Digit Span: a systematic review and cross-validation study. Assessment 2012; 19 (01) 21-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Meyers J. Meyers K. Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Boone KB. Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment: A Neuropsychological Perspective. New York: Guilford Press; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Boone KB. Clinical Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology. An Evidence-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Larrabee GJ. Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Morgan JE. Sweet JJ. Neuropsychology of malingering casebook. New York: Psychology Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Carone D. Bush SS. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering. New York: Springer; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Boone KB. The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations. Clin Neuropsychol 2009; 23 (04) 729-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Larrabee GJ. Detection of symptom exaggeration with the MMPI-2 in litigants with malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. Clinical Neuropsychologist 2007; 17: 54-68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Larrabee GJ. Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: relationship to likelihood ratios. Clin Neuropsychol 2008; 22 (04) 666-679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Merten T. Beschwerdenvalidierung. Fortschritte der Neuropsychologie. Bd. 14. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Rogers R. Detection strategies in malingering and defensiveness, in Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford ; 2008: 14-38
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Rogers R. Towards an empirical model of malingering and deception. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1984; 2: 93-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rogers R. Bagby RM. Dickens SE. Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Rogers R. Sewell KW. Gillard ND. Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd ed. (SIRS-2) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Schmidt T. Lanquillon S. Ullmann U. Kontroverse zu Beschwerdenvalidierungsverfahren bei der Begutachtung psychischer Störungen. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie 2011; 5 (03) 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Vitacco MJ. et al. An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: a known-groups comparison. Law Hum Behav 2007; 31 (03) 249-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Rogers R. Vitacco MJ. Kurus SJ. Assessment of malingering with repeat forensic evaluations: patient variability and possible misclassification on the SIRS and other feigning measures. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2010; 38 (01) 109-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 McCusker PJ. et al. Comparability of the MMPI-2 F(p) and F scales and the SIRS in clinical use with suspected malingerers. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2003; 47 (05) 585-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Cima M. et al. „Strukturierter Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome“. Die deutsche Version des „Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology: SIMS“. Nervenarzt 2003; 74 (11) 977-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Lanquillon S. Schmidt T. Stieglitz RD. Strukturiertes Interview Berichteter Beschwerden SIBB. Bern: Huber; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Miller HA. Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Smith GP. Brief screening measures for the detection of feigned psychopathology, in Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception. 3rd ed. R. Rogers, Editor New York: Guilford; 2008: 323-339
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Guy L. Miller HA. Screening for malingered psychopathology in a correctional setting – Utility of the Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). Criminal Justice and Behavior 2004; 31 (06) 695-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Miller HA. The Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST): Test generalizability and utility across race, literacy, and clinical opinion. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2005; 32 (06) 591-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Smith GP. Burger GK. Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1997; 25 (02) 183-189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Wisdom NM. Callahan JL. Shaw TG. Diagnostic utility of the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology to detect malingering in a forensic sample. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2010; 25 (02) 118-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 van Impelen A. et al. The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Neuropsychol 2014; 28: 1336-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Butcher JN. et al. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. (rev.ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Gervais RO. et al. Development and validation of a response bias scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2. Assessment 2007; 14 (02) 196-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Gervais RO. et al. Differential sensitivity of the Response Bias Scale (RBS) and MMPI-2 validity scales to memory complaints. Clin Neuropsychol 2008; 22 (06) 1061-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Rogers R. Bender SD. Evaluation of malingering and deception, in Handbook of psychology: forensic psychology I.B. Weiner and A.M. Goldstein, Editors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons; 2003: 109-131
    Google Scholar
  • 74 Nelson NW. et al. Updated meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 symptom validity scale (FBS): verified utility in forensic practice. Clin Neuropsychol 2010; 24 (04) 701-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Lewis JL. Simcox AM. Berry DT. 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 (02) 170-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Baer RA. Miller J. Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Assess 2002; 14 (01) 16-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Engel RR. MMPI-2. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Manual. Bern: Hans Huber; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Thies E. Der deutsche MMPI-2: Effektivität der Validitätsskalen in der Aufdeckung von Antwortverzerrung. Marburg: Tectum; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 79 Butcher JN. Lim J. Nezami E. Objective study of abnormal personality in cross-cultural settings: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1998; 29: 189-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Dean AC. et al. Examination of the impact of ethnicity on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Fake Bad Scale. Clin Neuropsychol 2008; 22 (06) 1054-1060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Hall GCN. Bansal A. Lopez IR. Ethnicity and psychopathology: A meta-analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research. Psychological Assessment 1999; 11: 186-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Knaster CA. Micucci JA. The effect of client ethnicity on clinical interpretation of the MMPI-2. Assessment 2013; 20 (01) 43-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Morey LC. The personality assessment inventory professional manual. 2nd ed. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 84 Hawes SW. Boccaccini MT. Detection of overreporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment Inventory: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Assess 2009; 21 (01) 112-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Engel RR. Groves JA. Verhaltens- und Erlebensinventar. Deutschsprachige Adaption des Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) von L.C. Morey. Bern: Hans Huber; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 86 Vossler-Thies E. et al. Erfassung negativer Antwortverzerrungen mit der deutschen Fassung des „Personality Assessment Inventory“, dem „Verhaltens- und Erlebensinventar“. Diagnostica 2013; 59 (02) 73-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Morel KR. Development and preliminary validation of a forced-choice test of response bias for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Pers Assess 1998; 70 (02) 299-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Morel KR. Manual for the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Psychometric Properties. 3rd ed. rev. Las Vegas: NV: Author; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 89 Morel KR. Cutoff Scores for the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for PTSD: Considerations for Use in VA Mental Health Examinations. Psychological Injury and Law 2013; 6: 138-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Rubenzer S. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Assessing Response Style and Malingering. Psychological Injury and Law 2009; 2: 114-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Merten T. et al. Symptom Validity Testing in Claimants with Alleged Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Comparing the Morel Emotional Numbing Test, the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, and the Word Memory Test. Psychological Injury and Law 2009; 2: 284-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Geraerts E. et al. Detecting deception of war-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 2009; 20: 278-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Wiedmaier P. Schätzung von Normalbefunden für drei Beschwerdenvalidierungstests: Der Morel Emotional Numbing Test (MENT), der Strukturierte Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome und die List of Improbable Problems (LIMP). Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 94 Slick DJ. Sherman EM. Differential Diagnosis of Malingering, in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, in Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering, D. Carone and S.S. Bush, Editors. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2013: 57-72
    Google Scholar
  • 95 Bianchini KJ. Greve KW. Glynn G. On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: lessons from cognitive malingering research. Spine J 2005; 5 (04) 404-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Larrabee GJ. et al. Refining diagnostic criteria for malingering, in Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits, G.J. larrabee, Editor. Oxford: New York; 2007: 334-371
    Google Scholar
  • 97 Demakis GJ. Gervais RO. Rohling ML. The effect of failure on cognitive and psychological symptom validity tests in litigants with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2008; 22: 879-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Young G. Malingering, Feigning, and Response Bias in Psychiatric/Psychological Injury. Implications for Practice and Court. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Vol. 56. Dordrecht: Springer SBM; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 99 Boone KB. Clarification or confusion? A review of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson’s a critical analysis of the MND criteria for feigned cognitive impairment: implications for forensic practice and research. Psychological Injury and Law 2011; 4: 157-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Rogers R. Bender SD. Johnson SF. A critical analysis of the MND criteria for feigned cognitive impairment: Implications for forensic practice and research. Psychological Injury and Law 2011; 4: 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Rogers R. Bender SD. Johnson SF. A commentary on the MND model and the Boone critique: “Saying it doesn’t make it so”. Psychological Injury and Law 2011; 4: 162-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Bianchini KJ. et al. Classification accuracy of MMPI-2 validity scales in the detection of pain-related malingering: a known-groups study. Assessment 2008; 15 (04) 435-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Bossuyt PM. et al. Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 119 (01) 18-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Henry M. Beschwerdenvalidierungstests in der zivil- und sozialrechtlichen Begutachtung: Verfahrensüberblick, in Diagnostik der Beschwerdenvalidität, T. Merten and H. Dettenborn, Editors. Berlin: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag GmbH; 2009: 118-161
    Google Scholar
  • 105 Greiffenstein MF. Baker WJ. Gola T. Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychological Assessment 1994; 6 (03) 218-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Nelson NW. et al. Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2007; 13 (03) 440-449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Blaskewitz N. Merten T. Diagnostik der Beschwerdenvalidität – Diagnostik bei Simulationsverdacht: ein Update 2002 bis 2005. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2007; 75 (03) 140-154
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Merten T. Fragen der neuropsychologischen Diagnostik bei Simulationsverdacht. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2002; 70 (03) 126-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Dressing H. Widder B. Foerster K. Kritische Bestandsaufnahme zum Einsatz von Beschwerdenvalidierungstests in der psychiatrischen Begutachtung. Versicherungsmedizin 2010; 62: 163-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Heilbronner RL. et al. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. Clin Neuropsychol 2009; 23 (07) 1093-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 McMillan TM. et al. Assessment of effort in clinical testing of cognitive functioning for adults. Professional Practice Board. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2009: 1-27
    Google Scholar
  • 112 Neuropsychologen, S.V.d.N.u. Leitlinien für neuropsychologische Gutachten. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Frei A. et al. Kriterien zur Bestimmung des Schweregrades einer neuropsychologischen Störung sowie Zuordnungen zur Funktions- und Arbeitsfähigkeit. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie 2016; 27: 107-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Schneider W. et al. Begutachtung der Leistungsfähigkeit bei Personen mit psychischen und psychosomatischen Storungen – ein diagnostisches Modell. Versicherungsmedizin 2011; 63 (02) 68-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Schneider W. et al. Begutachtung bei psychischen und psychosomatischen Erkrankungen: Autorisierte Leitlinien und Kommentare. 2., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Bern: Hogrefe; 2016
    Google Scholar