Can malingering be identified with the judgment of line orientation test?
The purpose of this study was to evaluate recently proposed (Meyers, Galinsky, & Volbrecht, 1999) cutoff scores for biased responding on the Judgment of Line Orientation Test (JLO). A large sample of individuals involved in head injury litigation (N = 294) took the JLO and 2 tests designed to detect biased responding, the Computerized Assessment ofResponse Bias (CARB) and the Word Memory Test (WMT), as part ofa comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Patients were divided into groups on the basis of brain injury severity and whether or not they scored in the suspicious range on the CARB or WMT. The patients who were identified as providing biased responding on the CARB or WMT also scored significantly lower on the JLO. However, the Meyers et al. (1999) cutoff score correctly identified only 9.9% ofthis group, with a 1% possible false-positive rate. A different cutoff score was selected that had .22 sensitivity and .96 specificity. Overall, these results suggest that the JLO has limited utility as a screenfor biased responding; however, clinicians are encouraged to evaluate these scores carefully if they do not seem to make biological or psychometric sense.
Iverson
G L
GL
Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
D001930:Brain Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008306:Malingering / Q000175:diagnosis*; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*