107
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

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

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 705-715 | Published online: 12 Sep 2021
 

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.

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.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 398.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

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.