Can we recognise malingerers? The association between malingering, personality traits and clinical impression among complainants in civil compensation cases

Malingering of a cognitive deficit (i.e. memory and/or intellectual functioning) commonly occurs in civil and criminal cases. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between malingering and personality traits in civil cases. 63 participants (46 male, 17 female) seeking financial compensation following an accidental injury and referred for a neuropsychiatric assessment completed the Test of Malingering (TOMM), Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RS). 23 participants (36.5%) malingered on the TOMM and four (6.3%) malingered on the RSPM. No significant difference was found in the personality scores between the malingerers and non-malingerers. Regression analyses, using malingering on the TOMM as a continuous outcome variable, showed no effects of personality on the extent of malingering on Trial 1, Trial 2 or Retention trial. There was no agreement found between independent clinical impressions and malingering on the tests. The lack of a relationship between malingering and personality suggests that malingering is situation specific and influenced by 'adaptational' factors (i.e., a cost-benefit analysis) rather than 'criminological' motivational factors. The findings suggest that malingering tests should be administered routinely in assessments of civil compensation cases.