The Crime and Consequences blog has a post up (http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/2007/12/faking_retardation.html#comments) describing a study indicating that some offenders may be faking mental retardation in light of recent US Supreme Court decisions (see abstract below). I've heard from treatment people, especially those familiar with the LSI-R and its cousins, that some offenders with multiple passes through the system learn how to game those assessments to get programs, placements, whatever that they've figured out are tied to the assessments. I'd like to hear from this community about any other research or even anecdotal experience that indicates whether or to what extent these things actually happen. Also, what counter-measures have been successful to prevent this from being abused more than it has? Thanks.
Lili O. Graue, David T. R. Berry, Jessica A. Clark, Myriam J. Sollman, Michelle Cardi, Jaclyn Hopkins, & Dellynda Werline (2007), Identification of Feigned Mental Retardation Using the New Generation of Malingering Detection Instruments: Preliminary Findings, Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(6), 929-942.
Abstract: A recent Supreme Court decision - Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) - prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded (MR) defendants may have raised the attractiveness of feigning this condition in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, very few published studies have addressed the detection of feigned MR. The present report compared results from tests of intelligence, psychiatric feigning, and neurocognitive faking in a group of 26 mild MR participants (MR) and 25 demographically matched community volunteers asked to feign MR (CVM). Results showed that the CVM suppressed their IQ scores to approximate closely the level of MR participants. WAIS-III and psychiatric malingering measures were relatively ineffective at discriminating feigned from genuine MR. Although neurocognitive malingering tests were more accurate, their reduced specificity in MR participants was of potential concern. Revised cutting scores, set to maintain a Specificity rate of about .95 in MR clients, were identified, although they require cross-validation. Overall, these results suggest that new cutting scores will likely need to be validated to detect feigned MR using current malingering instruments.
The authors are all with the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Research Digest Blog has this summary.