Objective: This study tested whether patients who were given a handout based on deterrence theory, immediately prior to evaluation, would provide invalid data less frequently than patients who were simply given an informational handout.
Method: All outpatients seen for clinical evaluation in a VA Neuropsychology Clinic were randomly given one of the two handouts immediately prior to evaluation. The "Intervention" handout emphasized the importance of trying one's hardest, explicitly listed consequences of valid and invalid responding and asked patients to sign and initial it. The "Control" handout provided general information about neuropsychological evaluation. Examiners were blinded to condition. Patients were excluded from analyses if they were diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorder or could not read the handout. Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) was used to determine performance validity.
Results: Groups did not differ on age, education, or litigation status. For the entire sample (N = 251), there was no effect of handout on passing versus failing MSVT. However, among patients who were seeking disability benefits at the time of evaluation (n = 70), the Intervention handout was associated with lower frequency of failing MSVT than the Control handout.
Conclusions: This brief, theory-based, cost-free intervention was associated with lower frequency of invalid data among patients seeking disability benefits at the time of clinical evaluation. We suggest methodological modifications that might produce a more potent intervention that could be effective with additional subsets of patients.
Keywords: Behavioral economics; Effort; Malingering; Neuropsychological assessment; Neuropsychology; Test performance.
Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.