Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of Clinical Psychologist and Physician Beliefs and Practices Concerning Malingering: Results from a Mixed Methods Study

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Malingering, or intentional feigning of impairment for an external incentive, has been the topic of extensive psychological research in recent decades. The emphasis on symptom validity assessment in training, practice, and research in clinical psychology is not echoed across other health professions. While past surveys of clinical psychologists revealed positive beliefs and attitudes toward validity assessment, much less is known about physicians in this area, particularly in regard to how they identify suspected malingering. To address this gap, we surveyed a sample of demographically similar clinical psychologists (n = 57) and physicians (n = 54) regarding their beliefs and practices about malingering. Unique to this study was the use of a mixed survey and mixed methods approach to analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Broadly, survey findings indicated that more clinical psychologists reported documenting malingering in their careers compared with physicians (65.0% vs. 33.0%). Consistently, more clinical psychologists endorsed “always” or “often” being able to recognize malingering compared with physicians (73.7% vs. 22.2%). Clinical psychologists indicated that they ask patients or evaluees about potential external incentives (e.g., current involvement in litigation) much more often than physicians (70.0% vs. 16.0%). On average, clinical psychologists estimated higher base rates of malingering in six high-risk malingering diagnostic categories compared with physicians, with greatest estimation difference noted for mild traumatic brain injury (19.9% vs. 5.9%). Qualitative examination of respondent data generally converged with quantitative findings and provided additional insights to how conceptualizations of malingering differ across healthcare disciplines. Implications for practice and study limitations are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen L. Aita.

Ethics declarations

The present study was conducted according to pertinent ethical guidelines for research involving human participants, maintaining compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. Data collection and the study received ethical approval from the governing Institutional Review Board. The findings presented in this manuscript have not been previously published and the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Expanded main survey questions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aita, S.L., Borgogna, N.C., Aita, L.J. et al. Comparison of Clinical Psychologist and Physician Beliefs and Practices Concerning Malingering: Results from a Mixed Methods Study. Psychol. Inj. and Law 13, 246–260 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09374-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09374-x

Keywords

Navigation