Attempting to meet their objectives in opposing circumstances
Model in which the patient fakes symptoms
Models presuppose malingering is likely to occur with (1) a person with antisocial personality disorder (APD), (2) evaluations conducted for forensic purposes, (3) persons uncooperative with evaluation and treatment, and (4) persons whose claims are discrepant with objective findings
The denial of negative characteristics and the attribution of positive qualities
Social behaviors by attempting to create a positive image and avoid embarrassment and other negative emotions
In order to learn about dishonest people who do not comply with instructions to answer tests honestly, we study honest people who are complying with the instruction to answer tests dishonestly.
self-report with limited reliability
The patient answers fairly accurately, but leaves out some information
self-report without reliability
unbelievable response of symptoms due to exaggeration, denial, and guardedness
There is clear evidence that the patient is attempting to malinger, primarily through exaggeration.
The patient, either through exaggeration or fabrication, attempts to present him/herself as considerably more disturbed than is the case.
The patient is extreme in his or her fabrication of symptoms to the point that the presentation is fantastic or preposterous
There is clear evidence that the patient's severity of symptoms are downsized but present
The patient minimizes or denies substantial psychological impairment.
The patient denies any problem
degree of certainty
the level of experimental support and theoretical basis for justifying a diagnostic conclusion
design in which participants are offered small incentives for faking particular symptoms
patients responding accurately
differential prevalence design
design where persons with different settings are assumed to have contrasting rates or dissimulation
defense that a person may be excused if his thinking was severely disordered
defense that a person may be excused if his ability to control his behavior was severely impaired
unsupported level of certainty
conflicting research findings
speculative level of certainty
conclusions that are consistent with accepted theory and supported by one or two studies of limited genalizability
tentative(guarded) level of certainty
research studies consistently show statistical significance in the expected direction, but have little or no practical value in classifying individuals
probable level of certainty
research studies consistently establish statistical significance in which cutting scores, measures of central tendency, or a similar statistic accurately differentiate between at least 75% of the criterion groups
definite level of certainty
accurate classification of 90% or more of individual persons based on extensive, cross-validated research. Finding are congruent with accepted theory.
The set of abilities necessary for a criminal defendant to understand the proceedings in which he or she is participating and to make rational decisions about the alternative courses of action that are available.
In a trial, a position by the defendant that places the burden on the defendant to prove his/her claim.
Not responsible if:lacks capacity to determine “wrongfulness” (cognitive)OR unable to conform conduct to requirements of the law (volitional)
understanding of the the nature and purpose of the criminal proceeding
competence to plead guilty
The ability of a defendant to understand the possible consequences of pleading guilty to criminal charges instead of going to trial, and to make a rational choice between these alternatives.
competence to stand trial
Sufficient ability to understand the legal proceedings in which one is involved and to consult with one's attorney.
A variation of the insanity defense that is applicable if the defendant (in the words of the law) lacks the ability to understand the consequences of their act
mental state at the time of the crime
A rule applied in the history of the insanity defense, in which the defendant must show that he did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know the difference between right and wrong.
A plea of no contest.
To agree about a fact in a legal proceeding without further argument or examination.
Protects the rights of the accused to jury trial, confront opposition, and right to counsel
Assesses understanding, reasoning, and appreciation of relevant legal issues
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that determined a state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
- release of patients IST in decent time frame -
Wilson v. United States (1968)
led to the consideration of six factors when deciding competency with amnesia
Amnesia - 6 things to consider
(1)ability to consult counsel
(2)ability to testify
(3)can others reconstruct crime
(4)prosecutions assistance in reconstruction
(5)strength of prosecutions case
(6)anything else that indicates the fairness of the trial
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
refused the right to counsel, lost
Irresistible Impulse Test
Inability to exercise rational control over one’s behavior