Validity testing in dually diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and mild closed head injury.

Prospects for the coexistence of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) rely exclusively on subjective evidence, increasing the risk of response bias in a compensatable social context. Using a priori specificities derived from genuine brain disorder groups, we examined validity failure rates in three domains (symptom, cognitive, motor) in 799 persons reporting persistent subjective disability long after mild neurological injury. Validity tests included the Test of Memory Malingering, MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale, and Infrequency (F) scales, reliable digit span, and Halstead-Reitan finger tapping. Analyses showed invalidity signs in large excess of actuarial expectations, with rising invalidity risk conditional on post-traumatic complexity; the highest failure rates were produced by the 95 persons reporting both neurogenic amnesia and re-experiencing symptoms. We propose an "over-endorsement continuum" hypothesis: The more complex the post-traumatic presentation after mild neurological injury, the stronger the association with response bias. Late-appearing dual diagnosis is a litigation phenomenon so intertwined with secondary gain as to be a byproduct of it.