Malingering Tests Attorneys Should Know About
In criminal and civil cases, questions often arise about whether a client or opposing party is exaggerating or feigning psychological symptoms. This is where malingering assessments become highly relevant. Attorneys do not need to become experts in these tools, but having a basic awareness can help in evaluating expert testimony and preparing for cross-examination.
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS-2)
Often considered the “gold standard” for malingering assessment, the SIRS-2 is a structured interview designed to evaluate the credibility of reported psychiatric symptoms. It uses strategies such as assessing for rare, absurd, or highly improbable symptom combinations. Because of its research base, it is frequently cited in forensic contexts.
Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST)
The M-FAST is a brief screening tool. While not as comprehensive as the SIRS-2, it is often used in correctional or forensic settings to flag possible exaggeration. Attorneys should note that positive M-FAST results generally warrant further evaluation with more robust measures.
Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS)
The SIMS is a self-report questionnaire that screens for exaggerated cognitive, affective, and neurological complaints. It is relatively quick and easy to administer, but critics note that it can produce false positives, making it best suited as a screening rather than a stand-alone diagnostic tool.
In addition to the tests described above, there are other embedded and standalone measures that are often used in conjunction to the measures described above. No single test can provide the answers to a referral question. The forensic psychologist is tasked with piecing together a puzzle through a combination of records review, collateral interviews, clinical interviews, and test data. Similarly, in arriving at an opinion in support of or against malingering, it is imperative to rely on multiple sources of data.
Why This Matters for Attorneys
Understanding these tests helps attorneys know what questions to ask. For example: Was a thorough malingering measure used, or only a quick screener? How well are the results supported by research? Recognizing the strengths and limitations of these instruments can be critical in challenging or bolstering expert opinions in court.
The information provided above does not constitute clinical advice nor does it guarantee a specific opinion or outcome. To discuss a case, please call or email.
