Actual Versus Self-Reported Scholastic Achievement of Litigating Postconcussion and Severe Closed Head Injury Claimants

Psychologists typically rely on patients' self-report of premorbid status in litigated settings. The authors examined the fidelity between self-reported and actual scholastic performance in litigating head injury claimants. The data indicated late postconcussion syndrome (LPCS) and severe close...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological assessment 2002-06, Vol.14 (2), p.202-208
Hauptverfasser: Greiffenstein, M. Frank, Baker, W. John, Johnson-Greene, Douglas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Psychologists typically rely on patients' self-report of premorbid status in litigated settings. The authors examined the fidelity between self-reported and actual scholastic performance in litigating head injury claimants. The data indicated late postconcussion syndrome (LPCS) and severe closed head injury litigants retrospectively inflated scholastic performance to a greater degree than nonlitigating control groups. The LPCS group showed the highest magnitude of grade inflation, but discrepancy scores did not significantly correlate with a battery of malingering measures or with objective cerebral dysfunction. These findings support previous studies, which showed self-report is not a reliable basis for estimation of preinjury cognitive status. Retrospective inflation may represent a response shift bias shaped by an adversarial context rather than a form of malingering.
ISSN:1040-3590
1939-134X
DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.202