English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective:  The present study was the first to investigate the test performance and symptom reports of individuals who engage in both over-reporting (i.e., exaggerating or fabricating symptoms) and under-reporting (i.e., exaggerating positive qualities or denying shortcomings) in the context of a forensic evaluation. We focused on comparing individuals who over- and under-reported (OR + UR) with those who only over-reported (OR-only) on the MMPI-3.  Method:  Using a disability claimant sample referred for comprehensive psychological evaluations ( n  = 848), the present study first determined the rates of possible over-reporting (MMPI-3 F ≥ 75 T, Fp ≥ 70 T, Fs ≥ 100 T, or FBS or RBS ≥ 90 T) with ( n  = 42) and without ( n  = 332) under-reporting (L ≥ 65 T). Next, we examined group mean differences on MMPI-3 substantive scale scores and scores on several additional measures completed by the disability claimant sample during their evaluation.  Results:  The small group of individuals identified as both over-reporting and under-reporting (OR + UR) scored meaningfully higher than the OR-only group on several over- and under-reporting symptom validity tests, as well as on measures of emotional and cognitive/somatic complaints, but lower on externalizing measures. The OR + UR group also performed significantly worse than the OR-only group on several performance validity tests and measures of cognitive ability.  Conclusions:  The present study indicated that disability claimants who engage in simultaneous over- and under-reporting portray themselves as having greater levels of dysfunction but fewer externalizing tendencies relative to claimants who only over-report; however, these portrayals are likely less accurate reflections of their true functioning.

Virtuous victims: Disability claimants who over- and under-report