|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we analyzed differences between uncoached, symptom-coached, and test-coached simulators regarding strategies of feigning mild head injuries.
METHOD: Healthy undergraduates (n = 67 in the first study; n = 48 in the second study), randomized into three simulator groups, were assessed with four experimental memory tests. In the first study, tests were administered face-to-face, while in the second study, the procedure was adapted for online testing.
RESULTS: Online simulators showed a different approach to testing than face-to-face participants (U tests < 920, p < .05). Nevertheless, both samples favored strategies like memory loss, error making, concentration difficulties, and slow responding. Except for slow responding and concentration difficulties, the favorite strategies correlated with validity indicators. In the first study, test-coached simulators (m = 4.58-5.68, SD = 2.2-3) used strategies less than uncoached participants (m = 5.25-5.88, SD = 2.26-2.84). In the second study, test-coached participants (m = 3.8-5.6, SD = 1.51-2.2) employed strategies less than uncoached (m = 6.21-7.29, SD = 1.25-1.85) and symptom-coached participants (m = 6.14-6.79, SD = 1.69-2.76).
DISCUSSION: Similarities and differences between online and face-to-face assessments are discussed. Recommendations to associate heterogeneous indicators for detecting feigning strategies are issued.
Language: en |