Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The detection of deception.

In clinical situations patient honesty and self-interest usually coincide; however, in legal circumstances patients may be motivated to deceive and may be skilled in doing so. Research raises doubts about the capacity of health professionals to detect malingering, particularly when there is less known about conditions or expected symptom patterns, more definitive tests are lacking or require patient cooperation, and diagnosis depends substantially on patient self-report. Given the lack of systematic feedback about our judgmental accuracy when deciding the presence or absence of malingering, clinical experience per se provides an inadequate means for identifying and correcting erroneous practices and for determining just how confident we ought to be in our subjective impressions. Thus, in the appraisal of malingering, it is dangerous to place too much dependence on subjective confidence. Methods are discussed that can supplement medical examination and increase the accuracy of malingering detection.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app