1 / 24

The Assessment of malingering with the M-FAST

The Assessment of malingering with the M-FAST. Holly A. Miller, Ph.D. College of Criminal Justice Sam Houston State University. Overview . Malingering Theory and assessment Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test Development of the M-FAST Utility of the M-FAST

shel
Download Presentation

The Assessment of malingering with the M-FAST

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Assessment of malingering with the M-FAST Holly A. Miller, Ph.D. College of Criminal Justice Sam Houston State University

  2. Overview • Malingering • Theory and assessment • Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test • Development of the M-FAST • Utility of the M-FAST • Brief overview of studies • Administration and scoring of the M-FAST • Practice administration • Interpretation • Questions

  3. Malingering • The DSM-IV-TR defines malingering as: • Intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives (APA, 2000) • Why might someone malinger? • Prevalence of malingering • Around 8% of general evaluations • Around 20% of forensic evaluations • Miller, 2000; Rogers & Cruise, 2000; Rogers, Salekin, Sewell, & Goldstein, 1996

  4. malingering • When to assess for malingering • Rogers suggests under these circumstances • Atypical presentation of symptoms • Unusually high number of unusual or obvious symptoms • Nonselective endorsement of symptoms • Discrepancies between reported and documented history of mental illness

  5. malingering • Why not just use clinical judgment? • DSM criteria • Marked discrepancy between reported impairment and objective findings • Lack of cooperation during evaluation or treatment • Medico-legal context presentation • Presence of APD • What research reports on accuracy of clinical judgment • Utilizing DSM criteria results in high false-positive rates • Studies strongly support that objective assessment instruments are significantly more accurate than clinical judgment (Miller, 2005; Rogers 1984; Ziskin, 1984)

  6. malingering • Miller, H. A. (2005). The Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST): Test generalizability and utility across race, literacy, and clinical opinion. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32 (6), 591-611. • Study 1 – initial M-FAST items (79 items) • 280 forensic patients; 5 psychiatrists; 8 psychologists • M-FAST; SIRS; Mtest; MMPI-2 • Study 2 – final M-FAST (25 items) • 50 forensic patients; 5 psychiatrists; 8 psychologists • M-FAST; SIRS; Mtest; MMPI-2

  7. malingering • Study 1 Clinical opinion v. M-FAST results • Psychiatrist Opinion • AUC = .72 (SE = .05) • CI = .62 - .81 • 19 FP; 17 FN • Psychologist Opinion • AUC = .80 (SE = .04) • CI = .72 - .88 • 15 FP; 11 FN • M-FAST (79 items) • AUC = .89 (SE = .02) • CI = .85 - .93

  8. Malingering • Study 2 Clinical opinion v. M-FAST results • Psychiatrists • AUC = .65 (SE = .09) • CI = .47 - .83 • 7 FP; 7 FN • Psychologists • AUC = .73 (SE = .08) • CI = .57 - .89 • 9 FP; 4 FN • M-FAST (final version) • AUC = .95 (SE = .03) • CI = .88 – 1.00 • 6 FP; 1 FN

  9. malingering • How to catch a malingerer • Previous research has indicated important areas of assessment: • Certain response styles • Certain interview strategies • Several instruments include assessment of response styles or were specifically designed to assess malingering • MMPI-2 • PAI • SIRS • However, there remains a need for a brief screen for malingered mental illness

  10. Development of the M-FAST • M-FAST items were developed to operationalize the response styles and interview strategies that have been validated for identifying individuals who are malingering • Reported vs Observed symptoms (RO) • Extreme Symptomatology (ES) • Rare Combinations (RC) • Unusual Hallucinations (UH) • Unusual Symptom Course (USC) • Negative Image (NI) • Suggestibility (S)

  11. Development of the m-fast • M-FAST is a structured interview of 25 items representing the “proven” detection strategies • Administration is approximately 5-10 minutes • Scoring is approximately 10 minutes • Does not require the ability to read (examinee) • Has been translated into Korean and Spanish • M-FAST was developed using both known- group and simulation studies

  12. Administration and scoring • Materials include manual and 8-page interview booklet • Validated on people 18 yrsand older • Validated with different ethnic/race groups • Validated across gender • Validated with varied populations • In prison • On probation • In forensic hospital • In civil hospital • Outpatient disability assessment

  13. Administration and scoring • Appropriate populations and limitations • Malingered psychopathology (not neuro) • Examinee must be able to understand items • Adults 18 yrsor older • Screening instrument and was not developed to be the sole determinate of malingered mental illness • Professional requirements • Mental health clinician with formal training in diagnostic interviewing and assessment

  14. Administration and scoring • M-FAST should be preceded by a clinical interview • To gather both symptom information and observable behavior (RO assessment help) • Read aloud instructions for administration to client • Suggestibility item • 1st response dictates how you ask last part of item • Read items and possible responses of each item • May repeat once – but offer no explanation

  15. Administer m-fast • With partner, practice administration • Partner role play a malingerer • Want to appear mentally ill, without elevating M-FAST score • Then reverse roles

  16. Administration and scoring • Scoring instructions provided on last page of interview booklet • Score individual items • Score scales • If more than 2 items missing, not considered valid administration

  17. interpretation • Malingering is distinct from most forms of psychopathology; however the presence of malingering does not rule out a psychiatric disorder • Significant consequences for malingering diagnosis • Choosing of a cut score for M-FAST • More acceptable to have false positives than false negatives • Cut score of 6 utilized

  18. interpretation • Three levels • Total scale • Provides an estimate of the likelihood that the examinee is malingering • Interpretive statement: The examinee’s total score on the M-FAST was significantly elevated, indicating that this individual may be malingering mental illness. • Scales • Provides information on how the individual is malingering • Can make interpretive statements about scale elevations, but utilize total score for overall assessment • Each scale has own “cut score” • Suggestibility item (scale) • Manual provides interpretative statement examples • Items

  19. interpretation • Next step • Further malingering assessment is warranted if client elevated M-FAST

  20. M-FAST articles by topic • Competency to stand trial – forensic inpatients • Jackson, R., Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W. (2005). Forensic applications of the M-FAST: Screening for feigned disorders in competency to stand trial evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 199-210. • Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., Gabel, J., Munizza, J. (2007). An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: A known-groups comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 249-260. • Miller, H. A. (2004). Examining the use of the M-FAST with criminal defendants incompetent to stand trial. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(3), 268-280.

  21. M-FAST articles by topic • Validity Studies • Vitacco, M. J., Jackson, R. L., Rogers, R., Neumann, C. S., Miller, H. A. Gabel, J. (2008). Detection strategies for malingering with the M-FAST: A confirmatory factor analysis of its underlying dimensions. Assessment, 15(1), 97-103. • Miller, H. A. (2005). The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST): Test generalizability and utility across race, literacy, and clinical opinion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 591-611. • Veazey, C. H., Hays, J. R., Wagner, A. L., & Miller, H. A. (2005). Validity of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test in psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports, 96(3), 771-774. • Guy, L. S., & Miller, H. A. (2004). Screening for malingered psychopathology in a correctional setting: Utility of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(6), 695-716.

  22. M-FAST articles by topic • Civil forensic settings • Alwes, Y. R., Clark, J. A., Berry, T. R., Granacher, R. P. (2008). Screening for feigning in a civil forensic setting. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(2), 1-8.

  23. M-fast articles by topic • Diagnostic-specific malingering assessment • Messer, J. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2007). Detecting malingered posttraumatic stress disorder using Morel Emotional Numbing Test-Revised and the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(3), 33-57. • Guriel-Tennant, J., & Fremouw, W. J. (2006). Impact of trauma history and coaching on malingering of posttraumatic stress disorder using the PAI, TSI, and M-FAST. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(4), 577-592. • Guy, L. S., Kwartner, P. P., & Miller, H. A. (2006). Investigating the M-FAST: Psychometric properties and utility to detect diagnostic specific malingering. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(5), 687-702. • Guriel, J., Yanez, T., Fremouw, W. J., Shreve-Neiger, A., Ware, L., Filcheck, H., & Farr, C. (2004). Impact on coaching on malingered posttraumatic stress symptoms on the M-FAST and TSI. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(2), 37-56.

  24. Thank you! Holly A. Miller, Ph.D. Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Programs Associate Professor College of Criminal Justice Sam Houston State University Huntsville, Texas 77341-2296 936-294-1686; hmiller@shsu.edu

More Related