ABSTRACT
Therein lies the second and critical reason why the opinions of clinical neuropsychologists are sought in such great numbers. No medical specialty has even 5% of the size of neuropsychology’s scientific literature that has addressed essential questions in forensic practice, and in particular has developed methods of identifying invalid responding, insufficient effort, and malingering. This obvious fact can be illustrated quite easily by a quick perusal of Appendices A through E of this book. From a different perspective, a real-life example is instructive. In 2006, one of this text’s co-editors (Sweet) was invited to put together a multidisciplinary panel on the topic of malingering for a multidisciplinary audience of psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, and neurologists. It was very easy to identify neuropsychologists with expertise in forensic practice, who had researched and published on malingering, to invite to join the panel. Indeed, there was an abundance of such experts from which to choose. It was more difficult to identify a psychiatrist, as a computerized literature search identified only two names that suggested national recognition and prominence on the topic of malingering. When they turned out to be unavailable, personal contacts with forensic experts around the country turned up only one well-qualified individual. Though there are undoubtedly additional well-qualified and very capable forensic psychiatrists in the United States and Canada, apparently very few can claim national prominence on the topic of malingering detection. With regard to neurology, the search was even more difficult. Computerized literature searches failed to yield a single neurologist who had been the first author of a peer-reviewed empirical publication on the subject matter of malingering. Even more problematic, apart from those who had published on the topic, personal contacts also failed to identify a neurologist who had developed a reputation as an expert on malingering. Again, there are very experienced and competent clinical neurologists with expertise in providing forensic opinions, but it seems clear that neurology’s evolution has not
included an emphasis on malingering detection or relevant empirical investigation. To bring closure to the anecdote on the multidisciplinary panel on malingering, the healthcare and non-healthcare experts recruited proved to be an exceptionally good group, and the goals of the presentation were met. Interestingly, the forensic psychiatrist gave a very good presentation, in which he acknowledged relying heavily on the malingering detection methods of a local neuropsychologist with whom he very frequently collaborated when evaluating litigants and claimants. Part of his message to the audience was that psychiatry had not developed its own relevant methodology, and it was clear to the psychiatrist (as it has been clear to forensic neuropsychologists) that interviewing alone is not a sufficient approach.
