This paper reviews the use of a modern psychophysical technique known as symptom validity testing. The technique employs a forced choice procedure providing an objective method for distinguishing between functional and organic aetiology in cases with sensory or memory deficit. The determination of functionality is by the objective demonstration that behaviour is controlled by stimuli in the sense modality in which the deficit is claimed. The data can be evaluated using conventional statistical techniques. The method is an advance on classical psychophysical methods as it does not depend upon the patient reporting whether he can or cannot perceive a single stimulus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinderL. M.PankratzL. (1987) Neuropsychological evidence of a factitious memory complaint. J. of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology9, 167–71.
2.
BradyJ. P. (1966) Hysteria versus malingering: a response to Grosz and Zimmerman. Behav. Res. Ther.4, 321–2.
3.
BradyJ. P.LindD. L. (1961) Experimental analysis of hysterical blindness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry.4, 331–9.
4.
GroszH. J.ZimmermanJ. (1965) Experimental analysis of hysterical blindness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry13, 256–60.
5.
HaughtonP. M.LewsleyA.WilsonM.WilliamsR. G. (1979) A forced-choice procedure to detect feigned or exaggerated hearing loss. Br. J. Audiol.13, 135–8.
6.
LezakM. D. (1983) Neuropsychological Assessment, 2nd ed.New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 621–2.
7.
MillerE. (1968) A note an the visual performance of a subject with unilateral functional blindness. Behav. Res. Ther.6, 115–16.
8.
MillerE. (1986) Detecting hysterical sensory symptoms: an elaboration of the forced choice technique. Br. J. Clin. Psychol.25, 231–2.
9.
MillerE. (1987) Hysteria: its nature and explanation. Br. J. Clin. Psychol.26, 163–73.
10.
PankratzL. (1979) Symptom validity testing and symptom retraining: procedures for the assessment and treatment of functional sensory deficits. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.47, 409–10.
11.
PankratzL. (1983) A new technique for the assessment and modification of feigned memory deficit. Percept. Mot. Skills57, 367–72.
12.
PankratzL. (1988) Malingering on intellectual and neuropsychological measures. In: Rogers R. Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception. New York and London, The Guilford Press, 183–92.
13.
PankratzL.BinderL. M.WilcoxL. M. (1987) Evaluation of an exaggerated somatosensory deficit with symptom validity testing. Arch. Neurol.44, 798.
14.
PankratzL.FaustiS. A.PeedS. (1975) A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in the hysterical malingering patient. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.43, 421–2.
15.
SiegelS. (1956) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, McGraw Hill, 36–42.
16.
TheoderL. H.MandelcornM. S. (1973) Hysterical blindness: a case report and study using a modern psychophysical technique. J Abnorm. Psychol.92, 552–3.
17.
WaldAWolfowitzJ. (1940) On a test whether two samples are from the same population. Ann. Math. Stat.2, 147–62.
