Detection of feigned cognitive impairment: The two-alternative forced-choice method compared with selected conventional tests

A two-alternative forced-choice test, two putative malingering tests, and four neuropsychological tests were administered to 105 prison inmates (51 males and 54 females) and 108 university students (54 males and 54 females) in one of three conditions: naive faking, coached faking, and control. Six of the seven tests differentiated faking subjects from controls, but only the forced-choice test differentiated between naive and coached faking. Even though only 11% of the faking subjects performed below the level of chance on the forced-choice test, this test was more sensitive than other tests in distinguishing between faking subjects and controls. The putative malingering tests were the least sensitive measures. The most salient difference between inmates and students was that faking inmates did not respond to a bogus difficulty manipulation in the forced-choice test. The results indicate that the forced-choice method is a sensitive means of detecting dishonest performance even when scores do not fall below chance.