Jelicic Marko, Merckelbach Harald, Candel Ingrid, Geraerts Elke
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Int J Neurosci. 2007 Aug;117(8):1185-92. doi: 10.1080/00207450600934697.
The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Amsterdam Short Term Memory (ASTM) test with that of the Structured Inventory of the Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in detecting feigning of cognitive dysfunction in naïve and coached participants. Ninety undergraduate students were administered the ASTM and the SIMS and asked to respond honestly (controls; n = 30), or instructed to malinger cognitive dysfunction due to head injury. Before the both instruments were administered, naïve malingerers received no further information (n = 30), whereas coached malingerers were given some information about brain injury and a warning not to exaggerate symptoms (n = 30). Both tests correctly classified 90% of the naïve malingerers. The ASTM detected 70% of the coached malingerers, whereas the SIMS continued to detect 90% of them. The findings suggest that coaching undermines the diagnostic accuracy of the ASTM, but does not seem to influence the accuracy of the SIMS.
本研究的目的是比较阿姆斯特丹短期记忆(ASTM)测试与伪装症状结构化量表(SIMS)在检测初次尝试伪装和接受指导的参与者认知功能障碍伪装方面的准确性。90名本科生接受了ASTM和SIMS测试,并被要求如实作答(对照组;n = 30),或被指示伪装因头部受伤导致的认知功能障碍。在进行这两项测试之前,初次尝试伪装者未得到进一步信息(n = 30),而接受指导的伪装者则获得了一些关于脑损伤的信息,并收到了不要夸大症状的警告(n = 30)。两项测试均正确分类了90%的初次尝试伪装者。ASTM检测出70%接受指导的伪装者,而SIMS仍能检测出其中的90%。研究结果表明,指导会削弱ASTM的诊断准确性,但似乎不会影响SIMS的准确性。