Increasingly, 'experts' wishing to give opinion-based testimony in court are required to justify their judgements. Following the landmark ruling in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the scrutiny of the courts has extended to experts' knowledge about the reliability and validity of the tools and measures upon which they base their judgements. One area of particular concern to the courts is that of malingering. However, there is a paucity of data on base rates of malingering in Australasian samples. This study used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) F-scale to determine a base rate for malingering in a litigating sample. Relevant to international literature, unusual gender differences were found and speculation on what this means is discussed.
Getting Caught in Court: Base Rates for Malingering in Australasian Litigants
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.