Independent Practice, Algiers Neurobehavioral Resource, LLC, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 Apr;34(3):454-476. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2019.1663265. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
This paper aims to develop diagnostic criteria for factitious disorder (FD) and a heuristic for research by creating standards for delineating criterion groups.: Both FD and malingering are conceptualized within a rubric of illness-deception. The history of FD research was compared to the research history on malingering. Differences in the measurement of these constructs were described. The potential utility of performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) in FD is discussed in light of successful applications in malingering. Methods for obtaining evidence for FD are delineated in a table of diagnostic criteria.: The comparison of FD and malingering research shows that the scientific measurement of malingering evolved rapidly with the introduction of forced-choice validity testing and cogent guidelines for the formation of criterion groups. Likewise, PVTs and SVTs hold promise as methods of measuring deceptive behavior in FD. The most salient differences between FD and malingering are understood to be matter of context/setting: malingering occurs in an external incentive context, while FD occurs in a medical/psychological context. Guidelines to assess FD are developed to fill the need for known-groups research.: Evidence for FD, a form of illness-deception, can be obtained by using validity testing, which, together with careful clinical observation, allows for the development of probabilistic diagnostic criteria. Similar to the other form of illness-deception - malingering - these criteria can be used to form known groups for research.
本文旨在为诈病(FD)制定诊断标准,并为研究提供一个启发式方法,为划定标准组制定标准:FD 和诈病都被概念化为疾病欺骗的范畴内。FD 研究的历史与诈病研究的历史进行了比较。描述了这些结构的测量差异。根据在诈病中的成功应用,讨论了绩效有效性测试(PVT)和症状有效性测试(SVT)在 FD 中的潜在效用。在诊断标准表中阐述了获得 FD 证据的方法:FD 和诈病研究的比较表明,诈病的科学测量随着强制选择有效性测试的引入以及形成标准组的明确指南而迅速发展。同样,PVT 和 SVT 有望成为测量 FD 中欺骗行为的方法。FD 和诈病之间最明显的区别被理解为是上下文/环境的问题:诈病发生在外部激励环境中,而 FD 发生在医疗/心理环境中。制定评估 FD 的指南是为了满足已知群体研究的需求:可以通过使用有效性测试来获得 FD(一种疾病欺骗形式)的证据,该测试与仔细的临床观察相结合,允许制定概率诊断标准。与其他形式的疾病欺骗——诈病类似——这些标准可用于为研究形成已知群体。