The impact of expertise and sufficient information on psychologists' ability to detect malingering

Twenty-two forensic diplomates and 22 general clinical psychologists were asked to review a variety of psychological data from one of four cases (two cases of malingering and two cases of legal insanity) to determine whether data suggested malingering or insanity. Of the 44 psychologists who reviewed cases, 86.4% accurately determined whether their protocol was from a malingerer or an insane person. Forensic diplomates and clinical psychologists were equally accurate in their determinations; only three subjects from each group misidentified their case. In spite of their success, confidence levels for both groups were reported as moderate. These results contradict previous studies that have found psychologists to not only be poor detectors of malingering, but also overconfident in their ability to detect it. It is believed that the success of psychologists in this study compared to previous studies was due to improved methodology.