Rogers R, Sewell K W, Cruise K R, Wang E W, Ustad K L
University of North Texas, Denton 76203-1280, USA.
Assessment. 1998 Dec;5(4):399-405. doi: 10.1177/107319119800500409.
Indicators of feigned PAI profiles were derived from comparisons of simulators instructed to feign and genuine patient groups. Concerns are raised regarding whether these indicators are applicable to forensic and correctional populations and can be cross-validated with a known-groups comparison. Compiling data on 57 malingerers and 58 genuine patients from two forensic and correctional sites, three primary indicators of feigning, Negative Impression (NIM) scale, Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF) were investigated. Results suggested that the RDF was not applicable to forensic referrals. However, NIM 77T appeared to be a useful screen for forensic samples. In addition, convergent evidence of feigning was found across designs (simulation and known-groups) and samples (non-forensic and forensic) for extreme elevations on NIM (>/=110T) and Malingering Index (>/=5).
伪装的疼痛行为指标来自于对被指示伪装的模拟者和真实患者群体的比较。有人担心这些指标是否适用于法医和教养机构人群，以及能否通过已知群体比较进行交叉验证。收集了来自两个法医和教养机构的57名伪装者和58名真实患者的数据，对三个伪装的主要指标，即负面印象（NIM）量表、伪装指数和罗杰斯判别函数（RDF）进行了研究。结果表明，RDF不适用于法医转诊。然而，NIM 77T似乎是法医样本的一个有用筛查工具。此外，在设计（模拟和已知群体）和样本（非法医和法医）中，发现了在NIM（≥110T）和伪装指数（≥5）极端升高时伪装的趋同证据。
