Test to Spot Liars Takes Center Stage in Personal Injury Cases

Evidence

Test to Spot Liars Takes Center Stage in Personal Injury Cases

Posted Mar 5, 2008, 06:20 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Expert witnesses are citing a test designed to spot those who are faking their pain in hundreds of court cases, prompting debate about its reliability.

The so-called Fake Bad Scale was added to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory last year, leading to its increasing use by expert witnesses in personal injury cases, the Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.). The MMPI is often used to diagnose and treat patients at mental-health facilities.

The 43-question test was created by psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who often works as an expert witness for the defense, the story explains. He tested the questionnaire on three groups: malingering personal-injury litigants, who had an average score of 27.6; people told to fake emotional distress, who had an average score of 25; and injured litigants, who had an average score of 15.7. He concluded that those who score 20 or above may be lying about their symptoms.

A false answer to questions such as “My sex life is satisfactory,” or “I seldom or never have dizzy spells,” can earn a point toward malingering.

A leading critic is plaintiffs lawyer Dorothy Clay Sims in Ocala, Fla., who has written guides on how to challenge the results and is seeking to get the test removed from the MMPI. Another is retired psychologist James Butcher, whose found that more than 45 percent of psychiatric patients he studied had Fake Bad Scale scores of 20 or more, and that women had higher scores than men. He contends it is unlikely so many psychiatric patients misled doctors.

"Virtually everyone is a malingerer according to this scale," Butcher told the newspaper. This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by irwin ironstone - 8 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 15 minutes ago

I wonder if there is a test for experts who sell their souls? or is that like soles and heels?
Posted by richard wright - 8 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 24 minutes ago

Junk science by the defense. I am amazed any court would allow it in, unless it is a Texas high court, renowned for always favoring the defense.
Posted by Howard Hudson - 8 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 22 minutes ago

Gee, if this test, written by an upper-class, white, male and used on all classes, all sexes, all races is so valid, why not use it on the bench and defense bar? Heck, why stop there, let’s apply it to jurors (“Can you fairly and unemotionally listen to the evidence and reach a result?“ “Yes” “Move to strike because he’s lying…“)

These “tests” tell us far more about the inherent biases of wealthy white men than they do about the subjects of the test.
Posted by Dana Craig - 8 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

It’s interesting to read comments denigrating the MMPI from members of the plaintiffs’ bar who have allowed their own experts to rely upon it for years to establish everything from organic brain damage to psychlogical injury. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Posted by James R. Adams - 8 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 33 minutes ago

The WSJ reporter, David Armstrong, cited only 2 court tests of the FBS where the testimony was not allowed—- both in Virginia. In fact, the test has been found to meet both Frye and Daubert standards in numerous cases throughout the country for quite some time. It would have been helpful if that had been made more clear.

James Butcher is not a neuropsychologist. Thus, he fails to recognize that FBS is particularly relevant to forensic adult neuropsycholocgy, although it may be less helpful in the clinical treatment area where he works. Ironically, Dr. Butcher does rely on other validity scales, whose items also overlap with bona fide psychological symptoms. It is unfortunate that this also was not mentioned in the article.

I apologize to the prior commenters for my lack of hyperbole.
Posted by Michael C. Witt - 8 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 32 minutes ago

Seems like an impermissible opinion on the truthfulness of another witness, usurping the function of the jury, which at least in the jurisdiction where I practice is generally not allowed. If an objection were lodged on this ground the question of whether the test meets other standards for the admissibility of expert testimony would seem irrelevant.
Posted by William Dorsey - 8 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 54 minutes ago

Pulling single scales out of carefully validated tests such as the MMPI is dangerous business from a psychometric validity standpoint. James N. Butcher is not just some “retired psychologist. “ He is one of the foremost researchers on the MMPI, from the faculty of the Univ. of MN. His relevant publications for lawyers include “The MMPI, MMPI-2 and MMPI-A in Court” (APA 2006); editing “MMPI-2, A Practitioner’s Guide” (APA 2006), and “A Beginners Guide ot the MMPI-2” (2 ed 2005).
Posted by Todd Ostler - 8 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 19 minutes ago

This scale, like the MMPI in general, is just one imperfect tool, like most tools that should be used in conjunction with other tools. By itself neither this scale nor the MMPI, should be the sole criteria for determining something as significant as whether or not someone is malingering.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Evidence