Strategies of feigning mild head injuries related to validity indicators and types of coaching: Results of two experimental studies

Abstract

Objective

In this paper, we analyzed differences between uncoached, symptom-coached, and test-coached simulators regarding strategies of feigning mild head injuries.

Method

Healthy undergraduates (n = 67 in the first study; n = 48 in the second study), randomized into three simulator groups, were assessed with four experimental memory tests. In the first study, tests were administered face-to-face, while in the second study, the procedure was adapted for online testing.

Results

Online simulators showed a different approach to testing than face-to-face participants (U tests  < 920, p < .05). Nevertheless, both samples favored strategies like memory loss, error making, concentration difficulties, and slow responding. Except for slow responding and concentration difficulties, the favorite strategies correlated with validity indicators. In the first study, test-coached simulators (m = 4.58–5.68, SD = 2.2–3) used strategies less than uncoached participants (m = 5.25–5.88, SD = 2.26–2.84). In the second study, test-coached participants (m = 3.8–5.6, SD = 1.51–2.2) employed strategies less than uncoached (m = 6.21–7.29, SD = 1.25–1.85) and symptom-coached participants (m = 6.14–6.79, SD = 1.69–2.76).

Discussion

Similarities and differences between online and face-to-face assessments are discussed. Recommendations to associate heterogeneous indicators for detecting feigning strategies are issued.

Keywords:

• Coaching
• cognitive dysfunction
• feigning strategies
• mild head injuries
• simulation
• validity indicators

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Acknowledgment

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF, link for anonymous peer review https://osf.io/c792g/?view_only=1d3bf7f2f3134d16a5115fa37ad193b9.