Negative response bias, malingering, and symptom validity in psychology: A Türkiye focused-review

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 242 - 263, 25.08.2025

Ali Yunus Emre Akca , Alpay Çiller , Elif Akyüz , Mehmed Seyda Tepedelen

https://doi.org/10.57127/kpd.26024438.1302390

Öz

The literature suggests that individuals undergoing psychological and/or neuropsychological assessments or referred for such assessments in certain contexts (e.g., medicolegal), may not always be honest about their reported problems or symptoms. Accordingly, individuals, particularly in the case of subjective self-reports, may exhibit a response style that biases or even invalidates assessment results based on a number of factors. These factors may include the nature of the questions, the context of the test, the mood of the individual during the assessment process, and/or the motive to obtain a benefit. For example, a response style defined as response bias, which is intended to distort assessment results, may involve some individuals presenting a situation as better than it actually is (positive response bias) and others presenting it as worse than it actually is (negative response bias). There may be internal (e.g., psychological benefit) and/or external (e.g., financial benefit) incentives behind this. Intentionally exaggerating or fabricating one's own psychological and/or physical symptoms in order to gain benefits motivated by an obvious external incentive is also a response style and is defined in the literature as malingering. In this context, symptom validity is a concept that refers to the accuracy of the symptoms reported by individuals (e.g., through self-report). In light of the above findings, this review is based on the international literature on response bias, malingering, and symptom validity, as well as studies conducted in Türkiye, targeting the Turkish population, or written in Turkish. In this context, the definition of malingering in the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), criticisms of the DSM definition, prevalence rates, consequences of detection failures, alternative detection systems, symptom validity assessment, recommended objective psychometric test types, and recent findings and developments in general were reviewed. Recommendations are made in light of the findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Negative response bias , malingering , symptom validity , assessment , review

Etik Beyan

This is a review study that does not require ethical approval.

Destekleyen Kurum

This study was not conducted within the scope of any project and no funds or grants were used.

Teşekkür

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: All authors of this article declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the article. Consent Form: It is not suitable for the type of research. Project/Funding Information: This study was not conducted within the scope of any project and no funds or grants were used. Data Sharing/Appropriateness: There is no data obtained from the participants within the scope of the study. Author(s) Contribution: [AYEA and AÇ] conceived and designed the analysis; collected the data by conducting the systematic review process including article screening and selection; performed the analysis by synthesizing and interpreting the findings; wrote the first draft of the paper including the introduction, methods, and results sections. [EA and MST] provided methodological guidance throughout the review process; revised and edited the manuscript, particularly contributing to the refinement of the introduction and discussion sections. All authors re-viewed and approved the final manuscript.

Psikolojide olumsuz yanıt yanlılığı, temaruz ve belirti geçerliliği: Türkiye odaklı bir gözden geçirme

Öz

Alanyazın, psikolojik veya nöropsikolojik değerlendirmeler geçiren veya belirli bağlamlarda (örn., adli tıp) bu tür değerlendirmeler için yönlendirilen bireylerin, bildirdikleri sorunlar veya belirtiler konusunda her zaman doğru olmadıklarını göstermektedir. Buna göre; bireyler, özellikle öznel bildirimlerde, birtakım faktörlere dayalı değerlendirmelerin sonuçlarını çarpıtan ve hatta geçersiz kılan bir yanıt tarzı sergileyebilirler. Bu faktörler arasında soruların niteliği, testin bağlamı, kişinin değerlendirme sürecindeki ruh hali ve/veya fayda sağlama güdüsü yer alabilir. Örneğin, yanıt yanlılığı olarak tanımlanan ve değerlendirme sonuçlarını çarpıtmaya yönelik olan bir yanıt tarzı, bazı kişilerin bir durumu gerçekte olduğundan daha iyi (olumlu yanıt yanlılığı), diğerlerinin ise gerçekte olduğundan daha kötü (olumsuz yanıt yanlılığı) olarak sunmasını içerebilir. Bu durum iç (örn., psikolojik fayda) ve/veya dış (örn., finansal fayda) teşvikler tarafından güdülenebilmektedir. Buradan hareketle, bariz bir dış teşvik doğrultusunda fayda sağlama amacıyla kişinin kendi psikolojik ve/veya fiziksel belirtilerini istemli olarak abartması veya bunları uydurması da bir yanıt tarzıdır ve alanyazında temaruz olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, belirti geçerliliği, bireyler tarafından sunulan (örn., öz bildirim yoluyla) belirtilerin doğruluğuna atıfta bulunmak için kullanılan bir kavramdır. Yukarıdaki bilgiler ışığında, bu gözden geçirme çalışması, yanıt yanlılığı, temaruz ve belirti geçerliliğine ilişkin uluslararası alanyazının yanı sıra Türkiye’de, Türk toplumuna yönelik veya Türkçe yazılmış çalışmalara dayanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, DSM’deki (Ruhsal Bozuklukların Tanısal ve Sayımsal Elkitabı) temaruz tanımı, DSM tanımına yönelik eleştiriler, yaygınlık oranları, tespit başarısızlıklarının sonuçları, alternatif tespit sistemleri, belirti geçerliliğinin değerlendirilmesi, önerilen nesnel psikometrik test türleri ve genel olarak güncel bulgular ve gelişmeler gözden geçirilmiştir. Elde edilen bilgiler ışığında önerilerde bulunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Olumsuz yanıt yanlılığı , temaruz , belirti geçerliliği , değerlendirme , gözden geçirme

Etik Beyan

Etik izin gerektirmeyen, sistematik derleme çalışmasıdır.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir proje kapsamında gerçekleştirilmemiş ve herhangi bir fon veya ödenek kullanılmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Etik Kurul Onayı: Etik izin gerektirmeyen, sistematik derleme çalışmasıdır. Çıkar Çatışması Beyanı: Bu makalenin tüm yazarları, makaleye ilişkin herhangi bir çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan ederler. Onam Formu: Araştırma türüne uygun değildir. Proje/Ödenek Bilgisi: Bu çalışma herhangi bir proje kapsamında gerçekleştirilmemiş ve herhangi bir fon veya ödenek kullanılmamıştır. Data Paylaşımı/Uygunluğu: Çalışma kapsamında katılımcılardan elde edilen herhangi bir veri yoktur. Yazar(lar)ın Katkısı: [AYEA ve AÇ], sistematik derleme sürecini (makale tarama, seçme ve eleme) yürüterek verileri topladı; bulguları sentezleyip yorumladı; makalenin ilk taslağını, giriş, yöntem ve sonuç bölümleri dâhil olmak üzere yazdı. [EA ve MST], derleme süreci boyunca yöntemsel rehberlik sağladı; özellikle giriş ve tartışma bölümlerinin geliştirilmesi olmak üzere metni gözden geçirdi ve düzenlemeler yaptı. Tüm yazarlar makalenin son halini gözden geçirdi ve onayladı.

Kaynakça

• Aamodt, M. G.ve Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar?: A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 15(1), 6-11.
• Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G. ve Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341-382.
• Akca, A. Y. E., Tepedelen, M. S., Uysal, B. ve Erdodi, L. A. (2023). The inventory of problems–29 is a cross-culturally valid symptom validity test: Initial validation in a Turkish community sample. Psychological Injury and Law, 16(3), 289-301.
• Akca, Y. E. A., Slootmaekers, L. ve Boskovic, I. (2020). Verifiability and symptom endorsement in genuine, exaggerated, and malingered pain. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(3), 235-245.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th, text revision ed.). American Psychiatric Association.
• American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.
• Amerikan Psikiyatri Birliği. (2014). Ruhsal bozuklukların tanısal ve sayımsal elkitabı, beşinci baskı (DSM-5), tanı ölçütleri başvuru elkitabı (E. Köruğlu, Çev.). Hekimler Yayın Birliği.
• Ardıç, F. C., Köse, S., Solmaz, M., Kulacaoğlu, F. ve Balcıoğlu, Y. H. (2019). Reliability, validity, and factorial structure of the Turkish version of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (Turkish SIMS). Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29(2), 182-188.
• Atay, S. (2007). İş yaşamında temaruz olgusu (malingering). Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 1-10.
• Ayhan, H. ve Karaman, H. (2021). Adli psikolojik değerlendirmenin temel ilkeleri: Destekleyici bir unsur olarak psikolojik testler. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 36-47.
• Babikian, T., Boone, K. B., Lu, P. ve Arnold, G. (2006). Sensitivity and specificity of various digit span scores in the detection of suspect effort. The Clinical Neuropsyc-hologist, 20(1), 145-159.
• Bass, C. ve Wade, D. T. (2019). Malingering and factitious disorder. Practical Neurology, 19(2), 96-105.
• Ben-Porath, Y. S. ve Tellegen, A. (2008). Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
• Ben-Porath, Y. S. ve Tellegen, A. (2020). MMPI-3 Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
• Berry, D. T. R. ve Nelson, N. W. (2010). DSM-5 and malingering: A modest proposal. Psychological Injury and Law, 3(4), 295-303.
• Bianchini, K. J., Greve, K. W. ve Glynn, G. (2005). On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: Lessons from cognitive malingering research. The Spine Journal: Official Journal of the North American Spine Society, 5(4), 404-417.
• Bond, C. F. ve DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234.
• Boone, K. B. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective. The Guilford Press.
• Bowes, S. M., Ammirati, R. J., Costello, T. H., Basterfield, C. ve Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). Cognitive biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies in clinical practice: A brief field guide for practicing clinicians and supervisors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51, 435-445.
• Brockhaus, R. ve Peker, Ö. (2003, Temmuz 16-20). Testing effort in Turkish-speaking subjects: Validation of a translation of the Word Memory Test (WMT). Twenty-Sixth Annual International Neuropsychological Society Mid-Year Conference, Berlin, Almanya.
• Bush, S. S., Heilbronner, R. L. ve Ruff, R. M. (2014). Psychological assessment of symptom and performance validity, response bias, and malingering: Official position of the association for scientific advancement in psychological injury and law. Psychological Injury and Law, 7(3), 197-205.
• Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Troster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., Reynolds, C. R. ve Silver, C. H. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity NAN policy & planning committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 20(4), 419-426.
• Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G. ve Kaemmer, G. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring (2. baskı). University of Minnesota Press.
• Cartwright, A., Roach, J. ve Armitage, R. (2019). Mission impossible? Assessing the veracity of a mental health problem as result of a road traffic accident: A preliminary review of UK experts’ practices. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 30(1), 89-111.
• Chafetz, M. D. (2011). The psychological consultative examination for social security disability. Psychological Injury and Law, 4(3), 235-244.
• Chafetz, M. ve Underhill, J. (2013). Estimated costs of malingered disability. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(7), 633-639.
• Cima, M., Merckelbach, H., Hollnack, S., Butt, C., Kremer, K., Schellbach-Matties, R. ve Muris, P. (2003). The other side of malingering: supernormality. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(2), 235-243.
• Czornik, M., Merten, T. ve Lehrner, J. (2021). Symptom and performance validation in patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 28(3), 269-281.
• Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Merckelbach, H., Bošković, I.ve Jelicic, M. (2020). do you know people who feign? Proxy respondents about feigned symptoms. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(3), 225-234.
• Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Merckelbach, H. ve Ponds, R. W. H. M. (2017). Neuropsychologists’ ability to predict distorted symptom presentation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 39(3), 257-264.
• Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. H. M., Peters, M. J. V. ve Merckelbach, H. (2011). Cognitive underperformance and symptom over-reporting in a mixed psychiatric sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(5), 812-828.
• Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. ve Merten, T. (2013). Symptom validity and neuropsychological as- sessment: A survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 28(8), 771-783.
• Demirkıran, S., Yaman, M. ve Uygur, N. (2003). Ceza ehliyeti değerlendirmelerinde yapılandırılmış görüşme yöntemlerinin klinik karara etkisi. Dusunen Adam: Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi 16(3), 139-143.
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. ve Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.
• Ekman, P. ve O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913-920.
• Erdodi, L. A.ve Abeare, C. A. (2020). Stronger together: the Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition as a multivariate performance validity test in patients with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(2), 188-204.
• Erdodi, L. A., Green, P., Sirianni, C. D. ve Abeare, C. A. (2019). The myth of high false-positive rates on the word memory test in mild TBI. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(2), 155-169.
• Faust, D., Hart, K., Guilmette, T. J.ve Arkes, H. R. (1988a). Neuropsychologists’ capacity to detect adolescent malingerers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(5), 508-515.
• Faust, D., Hart, K. ve Guilmette, T. J. (1988b). Pediatric malingering: The capacity of children to fake believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 578-582.
• Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385-400.
• Ger, M. C., Ljohiy, N. D., Öncü, F., Keyvan, A., Özgen, G. ve Türkcan, A. (2016). Tedaviye gönderilmiş tutuklu ve hükümlü erkek olgularda hekimi yanıltıcı davranışın klinik özellikleri. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 27, 235-243.
• Giromini, L., Pasqualini, S., Corgiat Loia, A., Pignolo, C., Di Girolamo, M. ve Zennaro, A. (2022a). A survey of practices and beliefs of Italian psychologists regarding malingering and symptom validity assessment. Psychological Injury and Law, 15, 128-140.
• Giromini, L., Young, G. ve Sellbom, M. (2022b). Assessing negative response bias using self-report measures: New articles, new issues. Psychological Injury and Law, 15(1), 1-21.
• Green, P. (2003). Word memory test for windows: User’s manual and program. Author.
• Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E. ve Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19-30.
• Hall, V. L.ve Kalus, A.-M. (2021). A comparative analysis of the base rate of malingering using Slick et al. (1999) and Sherman et al. (2020) multidimensional criteria for malingering in a UK litigant population. Psychological Injury and Law, 15, 141-150.
• Harrison, A. G. ve Sparks, R. (2022). Disability diagnoses: Seven sins of clinicians. Psychological Injury and Law, 15(3), 268-286.
• Hathaway, S. R. ve McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Rev. ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
• Hickling, E. J., Blanchard, E. B., Mundy, E. ve Galovski, T. E. (2002). Detection of malingered mva related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2(1), 33-53.
• Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 77-90.
• Jelicic, M., Merckelbach, H. ve Bošković, I. (2018). Seven myths about feigning. H. Otgaar ve M. L. Howe (Ed.), Finding the truth in the courtroom: Dealing with deception, lies, and memories (s. 227-242) içinde. Oxford University Press.
• Kaufman, N. K. ve Bush, S. S. (2020). Validity assessment in military psychology. U. Kumar (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of military psychology and mental health (1. baskı, s. 211-223) içinde. Routledge.
• Keyvan, A., Ger, M. C., Ertürk, S. G. ve Türkcan, A. (2015). Miller-Belirtilerin Adli Değerlendirme Ölçeği (m-fast) Türkçe formu’nun geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 52(3), 296-302.
• Knoll, J. ve Resnick, P. J. (2006). The detection of malingered post-traumatic stress disorder. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29(3), 629-647.
• Kokcu, A. T. ve Kurt, E. (2017). General practitioners’ approach to malingering in basic military training centres. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 163(2), 119-123.
• Larrabee, G. J. (2003). Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(3), 410-425.
• Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(4), 625-630.
• Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R. ve Meyers, J. E. (2009). 40 plus or minus 10, a new magical number: Reply to Russell. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(5), 841-849.
• Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W. ve Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey of North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741-776.
• Martin, P. K. ve Schroeder, R. W. (2020). Base rates of invalid test performance across clinical non-forensic contexts and settings. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 717-725.
• Matarazzo, J. D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psychological testing: Validation from Binet to the school, clinic, and courtroom. American Psychologist, 45(9), 999-1017.
• McCaffrey, R. J., Mian, M. N., Clegg, R. A. ve Lynch, J. K. (2021). Explaining performance and symptom validity testing to the trier of fact. J. A. M. Horton ve C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (s. 337-351) içinde. Springer International Publishing.
• McWhirter, L., Ritchie, C. W., Stone, J. ve Carson, A. (2020). Performance validity test failure in clinical populations—a systematic review. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 91(9), 945-952.
• Merckelbach, H., Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., van Helvoort, D., Jelicic, M. ve Otgaar, H. (2019). When patients overreport symptoms: More than just malingering. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 321-326.
• Merten, T., Giger, P., Merckelbach, H. ve Stevens, A. (2019). Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) – Deutsche Version. Manual [German version of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory. Manual]. Hogrefe.
• Merten, T., Merckelbach, H., Giger, P. ve Stevens, A. (2016). The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI): A new instrument for the assessment of distorted symptom endorsement. Psychological Injury and Law, 9(2), 102-111.
• Merten, T. ve Merckelbach, H. (2020). Factitious disorder and malingering. J. R. Geddes, N. C. Andreasen ve G. M. Goodwin (Ed.), New Oxford textbook of psychiatry (3. baskı, s. 1342-1349). Oxford University Press.
• Merten, T. ve Rogers, R. (2017). An international perspective on feigned mental disabilities: Conceptual issues and continuing controversies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(2), 97-112.
• Miller, H. A. (2001). M-FAST: Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M. ve Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(8), 1094-1102.
• Morel, K. R. (1998). Development and preliminary validation of a forced-choice test of response bias for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 299-314.
• Morel, K. R. ve Marshman, K. C. (2008). Critiquing symptom validity tests for posttraumatic stress disorder: A modification of Hartman’s criteria. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1542-1550.
• Neal, T. M. S. ve Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406-1421.
• Ng, W., Mattos, L. A., Coffey, C. A., Molina, S. M., Gottfried, E. D. ve Glassmire, D. M. (2021). The association between clinicians’ initial judgments of feigning and outcomes on symptom validity measures among pretrial forensic psychiatric inpatients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 76, 101698.
• Niesten, I. J. M., Nentjes, L., Merckelbach, H. ve Bernstein, D. P. (2015). Antisocial features and “faking bad”: A critical note. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 41, 34-42.
• Parker, N. (1979). Malingering: A dangerous diagnosis. Medical Journal of Australia, 1(12), 568-569.
• Puente-López, E., Pina, D., López-López, R., Ordi, H. G., Bošković, I. ve Merten, T. (2022a). Prevalence estimates of symptom feigning and malingering in Spain. Psychological Injury and Law, 16(1), 1-17.
• Puente-López, E., Pina, D., Shura, R., Boskovic, I., Martínez-Jarreta, B. ve Merten, T. (2022b). The impact of different forms of coaching on the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS). Psicothema, 34(4), 528-536.
• Resnick, P. J. (1984). The detection of malingered mental illness. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 21-38.
• Resnick, P. J. (2007). My favorite tips for detecting malingering and violence risk. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 30(2), 227-232.
• Rey, A. (1958). L’examen clinique en psychologie [The clinical assessment in psychology]. Presses Universitaires de Paris.
• Rienstra, A., Groot, P. F. C., Spaan, P. E. J., Majoie, C. B. L. M., Nederveen, A. J., Walstra, G. J. M., de Jonghe, J. F. M., van Gool, W. A., Olabarriaga, S. D., Korkhov, V. V. ve Schmand, B. (2013). Symptom validity testing in memory clinics: Hippocampal-memory associations and relevance for diagnosing mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35(1), 59-70.
• Rogers, R. (1990a). Development of a new classificatory model of malingering. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 18, 323-333.
• Rogers, R. (1990b). Models of feigned mental illness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(3), 182-188.
• Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M. ve Dickens, S. E. (1992). SIRS: Structured interview of reported symptoms professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.
• Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., Sewell, K. W., Goldstein, A. ve Leonard, K. (1998). A comparison of forensic and nonforensic malingerers: A prototypical analysis of explanatory Models. Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 353-367.
• Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W. ve Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured interview of reported symptoms, second edition: Professional test manual (2. baskı). Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W. ve Goldstein, A. M. (1994). Explanatory models of malingering: A prototypical analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 543-552.
• Rogers, R. ve Bender, S. D. (Ed.). (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4. baskı). The Guil- ford Press.
• Rogers, R. ve Cavanaugh, J. L. (1983). “Nothing but the truth” … A reexamination of malingering. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 11(4), 443-459.
• Rogers, R. ve Neumann, C. S. (2003). Conceptual issues and explanatory models of malingering. P. W. Halligan, C. Bass ve D. A. Oakley (Ed.), Malingering and ilness deception (s. 71-82) içinde. Oxford University Press.
• Rosen, G. M. ve Phillips, W. R. (2004). A cautionary lesson from simulated patients. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 32(2), 132-133.
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250-258.
• Santamaría Fernández, P., Capilla Ramírez, P. ve Ordi, H. G. (2013). Prevalencia de simulación en incapacidad temporal: Percepción de los profesionales de la salud [Health professionals’ perceptions of prevalence of malingering in temporary disability in Spain]. Clínica y Salud, 24, 139-151.
• Savaşır, I. (1978). Minnesota Çok Yönlü Kişilik Envanterinin Türkçeye uyarlanışı ve standardizasyon projesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 1(1), 18-24.
• Schroeder, R. W., Clark, H. A. ve Martin, P. K. (2022). Base rates of invalidity when patients undergoing routine clinical evaluations have social security disability as an external incentive. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 36(7), 1902-1914.
• Schroeder, R. W., Martin, P. K. ve Odland, A. P. (2016). Expert beliefs and practices regarding neuropsychological validity testing. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(4), 515-535.
• Sherman, E. M. S., Slick, D. J. ve Iverson, G. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735-764.
• Singh, J., Avasthi, A. ve Grover, S. (2007). Malingering of psychiatric disorders: A review. German Journal of Psychiatry, 10(4), 126-132.
• Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S. ve Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545-561.
• Smith, G. P. ve Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25(2), 183-189.
• Soliman, S. ve Resnick, P. J. (2010). Feigning in adjudicative competence evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(5), 614-629.
• Soysal, H. (2022). Hekimi yanıltıcı davranış. N. Uygur (Ed.), Adli psikiyatri uygulama kılavuzu (4. baskı, s. 281-299). Türkiye Psikiyatri Derneği.
• Stevens, A. (2022). The validity of clinicians’ diagnoses: Is it bread and butter? European Psychiatry, 65(S1), S46-S47.
• Suchy, Y. (2019). Introduction to special issue: Current trends in empirical examinations of performance and symptom validity. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(8), 1349-1353.
• Sweet, J. J., Heilbronner, R. L., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., Boone, K. B., Kirkwood, M. W., Schroeder, R. W., Suhr, J. A. ve Participants, C. (2021). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(6), 1053-1106.
• Sweet, J. J. ve Guidotti Breting, L. M. (2013). Symptom validity test research: Status and clinical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4(1), 6-19.
• Şener, M. T. ve Ancı, Y. (2013). Adli psikiyatride temaruzun belirlenmesinde hekim tecrübesi: Olgu sunumu. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Case Reports, 21(2), 94-97.
• Thomas, R. P. ve Lawrence, A. (2018). Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 167-176.
• Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Multi Health Systems.
• Türkçüer, İ., Serinken, M., Sengül, C. ve Özen, M. (2010). Munchausen sendromu mu? Yoksa temaruz mu? Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10(1), 38-40.
• Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Van der Heide, D., Boskovic, I., van Harten, P. ve Merckelbach, H. (2020). Overlooking feigning behavior may result in potential harmful treatment interventions: Two case reports of undetected malingering. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(4), 1371-1375.
• Van Dyke, S. A., Millis, S. R., Axelrod, B. N. ve Hanks, R. A. (2013). Assessing effort: Differentiating performance and symptom validity. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(8), 1234-1246.
• Van Egmond, J., Kummeling, I. ve Balkom, T. A. (2005). Secondary gain as hidden motive for getting psychiatric treatment. European Psychiatry, 20(5-6), 416-421.
• Van Egmond, J. ve Kummeling, I. (2002). A blind spot for secondary gain affecting therapy outcomes. European Psychiatry, 17(1), 46-54.
• Van Helvoort, D., Merckelbach, H., van Nieuwenhuizen, C. ve Otgaar, H. (2022). Traits and distorted symptom presentation: A scoping review. Psychological Injury and Law, 15(2), 151-171.
• Van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Niesten, I. J. M. ve à Campo, J. (2017a). Differentiating factitious from malingered symptomatology: The development of a psychometric approach. Psychological Injury and Law, 10(4), 341-357.
• Van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Niesten, I. J. M., Jelicic, M., Huhnt, B. ve à Campo, J. (2017b). Biased symptom reporting and antisocial behaviour in forensic samples: A weak link. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(4), 530-548.
• Viglione, D. J. ve Giromini, L. (2020). Inventory of problems–29: Professional manual. IOP-Test, LLC.
• Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L. ve Landis, P. (2017). The development of the inventory of problems–29: A brief self-administered measure for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 534-544.
• Walters, G. D., Rogers, R., Berry, D. T. R., Miller, H. A., Duncan, S. A., McCusker, P. J., Payne, J. W. ve Granacher Jr, R. P. (2008). Malingering as a categorical or dimensional construct: The latent structure of feigned psychopathology as measured by the SIRS and MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 20, 238-247.
• Widows, M. R. ve Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS – Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Wooley, C. N. ve Rogers, R. (2015). The effectiveness of the personality assessment inventory with feigned ptsd: An initial investigation of Resnick’s model of malingering. Assessment, 22(4), 449-458.
• Yıldırım, E. (2017). Adli nöropsikoloji ve temaruz (malingering). E. Şenol-Durak ve M. Durak (Ed.), Adli psikolojide gözlem-görüşme ve psikolojik değerlendirme (s. 159-186) içinde. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık.
• Yıldız, M. ve Nart, Ö. (2017). Klinik ortamlarda gözden kaçabilen temaruz olguları. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 18(4), 413-414.
• Young, G. (2014). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury: Implications for practice and court. Springer Science+Business Media.
• Young, G. (2015a). Detection system for malingered ptsd and related response biases. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(2), 169-183.
• Young, G. (2015b). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: prevalence 15 ± 15 %. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(3), 188-199.
• Young, S., Jacobson, R., Einzig, S., Gray, K. ve Gudjonsson, G. H. (2016). Can we recognise malingerers? The association between malingering, personality traits and clinical impression among complainants in civil compensation cases. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 235-238.