Question:
"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message
news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… > http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm > The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and > effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent > research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception > among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% > (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with > some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select > populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception > is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting > complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is > the potential for secondary gain.
I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable statistic on any of the above groups. By going to the listed URL, you find that this is a commercial endorsement for a particular psychological test which has the following characteristics (quoted from the site): "The overall efficiency of the VIP test in correctly classifying the initial validation sample as either valid or invalid test responders resulted in a 73.5% sensitivity statistic for the nonverbal subtest and 85.7% specificity. The VIP nonverbal subtest correctly classified a total of 79.8% of the sample. Sensitivity for the verbal subtest was 67.3% and specificity was 83.1% resulting in a correct classification rate of 75.5%." In other words, the nonverbal test had a false positive rate of 26.5% (i.e. individuals identified as malingerers who were not actually malingerers), and a false negative rate of 14.% (i.e. individuals who were actually malingerers not properly identified by the test). The verbal component was even worse, with a false positive rate of 32.7% (nearly 1 in 3 subjects), and a false negative rate of 16.9%. I’d sure hate to have my fate in any part depend on the outcome of this particular test instrument. No less than one if four of the malingerers identified were not malingerers.
Response:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:59:31 -0400, "Larry Hoover" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message >news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… >> http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm >> The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and >> effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent >> research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception >> among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% >> (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with >> some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select >> populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception >> is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting >> complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is >> the potential for secondary gain. >I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable >statistic on any of the above groups.
nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work whatsoever By going to the listed URL, you find – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->that this is a commercial endorsement for a particular psychological test >which has the following characteristics (quoted from the site): >"The overall efficiency of the VIP test in correctly classifying the initial >validation sample as either valid or invalid test responders resulted in a >73.5% sensitivity statistic for the nonverbal subtest and 85.7% specificity. >The VIP nonverbal subtest correctly classified a total of 79.8% of the >sample. Sensitivity for the verbal subtest was 67.3% and specificity was >83.1% resulting in a correct classification rate of 75.5%." >In other words, the nonverbal test had a false positive rate of 26.5% (i.e. >individuals identified as malingerers who were not actually malingerers), >and a false negative rate of 14.% (i.e. individuals who were actually >malingerers not properly identified by the test). The verbal component was >even worse, with a false positive rate of 32.7% (nearly 1 in 3 subjects), >and a false negative rate of 16.9%.
fair comment on the commercial test but has no bearing on the finding of 40% plus malingerers. you are setting up and attacking a straw man. The commercial test is a red herring Even much more stringent reviews of studies find undoubtedly one in four is a malingerer you may find this of more interest http://www.angelfire.com/va/MFMartelliPhD/nan2000text.html Neuropsychological and neuromedical evaluative procedures for assessing ABI sequelae are critically reviewed. Neuropsychological assessment frequently provides the primary evidence of neurologic impairment following mild and moderate brain injury. The validity of this assessment, however, is dependent upon the cooperation and motivation of the client. Notably, litigation introduces a situation where financial incentive to perform poorly frequently exits. In this proposal, neuropsychological and neuromedical evaluative procedures for assessing neurologic impairment following acquired brain injury are critically reviewed. The literature relating to current instruments and procedures for assessing motivation and response bias is summarized, with special emphasis on currently available instruments and interpretive findings from commonly used tests and interview procedures. A multiaxial conceptual model is presented and a procedural instrument for completing a profile of motivation and response bias which incorporates a wide array of findings from commonly employed instruments and procedures during ABI evaluation that are derived from neuropsychology, in addition to psychology, psychiatry, neurology and physiatry. Finally, explicit and comprehensive recommendations for enhancing motivation, assessing response bias, and increasing efficiency, utility and ecological validity of ABI assessment are offered. >I’d sure hate to have my fate in any part depend on the outcome of this >particular test instrument. No less than one if four of the malingerers >identified were not malingerers.
unless you are a malingerer drawing disabilty benefits whilst working or something I dont suppose you have to worry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
"Observer" <s…@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17ae13a277e2b22a989696@news.alt.net… > Did Hecate accidentally touch a sore spot?
No. > saying > "unless you are a malingerer drawing disabilty benefits whilst working > or something I dont suppose you have to worry" > you protest too much > You yourself are one of the people the article talks of arent you?
No. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> of course you have to worry > Dont bother to deny it > MESSAGE-ID:<01HW.B8D4DEB700026D7706562…@SMTP-Server.NC.RR.Com> > I think Larry, what bothers me the most, is your attack on certain > individuals. Because their beliefs are different than yours, you say that > they > are not responsible. Because, I did not agree with you about A.A., I too > am > irresponsible. > I guess my question for you is: have you been responsible for many of > the > things that you have done? You know that I don’t lie about the > ‘hoarding’ of > medication… You showed me the boxes of unused meds. You also told me > that you > led your psychiatrist to believe that you took these meds. You know that > you > continued to receive disability and welfare insurance while you were > working.
Believe whatever you choose. Whatever.
Response:
In article <30U09.253$tY5.62…@news20.bellglobal.com>, larryhoo…@sympatico.ca says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Observer" <s…@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:MPG.17ae13a277e2b22a989696@news.alt.net… > > Did Hecate accidentally touch a sore spot? > No. > > saying > > "unless you are a malingerer drawing disabilty benefits whilst working > > or something I dont suppose you have to worry" > > you protest too much > > You yourself are one of the people the article talks of arent you? > No. > > of course you have to worry > > Dont bother to deny it > > MESSAGE-ID:<01HW.B8D4DEB700026D7706562…@SMTP-Server.NC.RR.Com> > > I think Larry, what bothers me the most, is your attack on certain > > individuals. Because their beliefs are different than yours, you say that > > they > > are not responsible. Because, I did not agree with you about A.A., I too > > am > > irresponsible. > > I guess my question for you is: have you been responsible for many of > > the > > things that you have done? You know that I don’t lie about the > > ‘hoarding’ of > > medication… You showed me the boxes of unused meds. You also told me > > that you > > led your psychiatrist to believe that you took these meds. You know that > > you > > continued to receive disability and welfare insurance while you were > > working. > Believe whatever you choose. Whatever.
LOL I believe YOU! http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BE72629.D1420D54%40home.com Larry Hoover wrote:
I was lucky enough to have been forewarned about supplying supplemental info along with my CPP application, so I did not have to go through appeals. I was approved without even being contacted. All I did was photocopy my supporting info that I used for my Ontario Disability Support application. Approved without even being contacted huh? you have to admire your gall – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
"Larry Hoover" <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:30U09.253$tY5.62307@news20.bellglobal.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Observer" <s…@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:MPG.17ae13a277e2b22a989696@news.alt.net… >> Did Hecate accidentally touch a sore spot? > No. >> saying >> "unless you are a malingerer drawing disabilty benefits whilst >> working >> or something I dont suppose you have to worry" >> you protest too much >> You yourself are one of the people the article talks of arent you? > No. >> of course you have to worry >> Dont bother to deny it >> MESSAGE-ID:<01HW.B8D4DEB700026D7706562…@SMTP-Server.NC.RR.Com> >> I think Larry, what bothers me the most, is your attack on certain >> individuals. Because their beliefs are different than yours, you say >> that they >> are not responsible. Because, I did not agree with you about A.A., I >> too am >> irresponsible. >> I guess my question for you is: have you been responsible for many >> of the >> things that you have done? You know that I don’t lie about the >> ‘hoarding’ of >> medication… You showed me the boxes of unused meds. You also told >> me that you >> led your psychiatrist to believe that you took these meds. You know >> that you >> continued to receive disability and welfare insurance while you were >> working. > Believe whatever you choose. Whatever.
yeeehaw!! Goddamit I was right So youre one of the 4 in 10 wonder who the others are Guess its more a question of what they believe in Millbrook Ontario
Response:
Larry Hoover wrote: > "Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > > nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work > > whatsoever > I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the > context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context > of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to > the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
oh larry you so totally rock. the scientific method is surely mightier than the sword. go buddy! — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ some come to laugh the past away some come to make it, just one more day whichever way your pleasure tends if you plant ice, gonna harvest wind – hunter/garcia ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ blessed are we to dwell in these beautiful temples ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response:
In article <3D442E32.9558…@efn.org>, nite…@efn.org says… > the scientific method is surely mightier > than the sword.
True – but who said there’s anything ’scientific’ about psychiatry?
Response:
anna rainbows <nite…@efn.org> wrote: >> I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the >> context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context >> of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to >> the groups listed. You’re just a troll. >oh larry you so totally rock. the scientific method is surely mightier >than the sword. go buddy!
Get your kids back yet?
Response:
In this very newsgroup, "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: >I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the >context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context >of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to >the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
And you’re feeding?
Response:
"Observer" <s…@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17ae22fb7a0c410e989697@news.alt.net… > I believe YOU!
Well, that’s OK. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BE72629.D1420D54%40home.com > Larry Hoover wrote: > I was lucky enough to have been forewarned > about supplying supplemental info along with my CPP application, so I did > not have to go through appeals. I was approved without even being > contacted. > All I did was photocopy my supporting info that I used for my Ontario > Disability Support application. > Approved without even being contacted huh? > you have to admire your gall
My turn to be amused.
Response:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:55:12 -0400, "Larry Hoover" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message >news:pqu6kug8sp1jl1adrg2c7ai34bb895jv1o@4ax.com… >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:59:31 -0400, "Larry Hoover" >> <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message >> >news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… >> >> http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm >> >> The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and >> >> effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent >> >> research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception >> >> among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% >> >> (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with >> >> some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select >> >> populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception >> >> is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting >> >> complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is >> >> the potential for secondary gain. >> >I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable >> >statistic on any of the above groups. >> nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work >> whatsoever >I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the >context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context >of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to >the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
you got a nerve Hoover to call others trolls seems this isnt the only group you try to fuckup is it? From: SAM (samfetl…@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Own advice Newsgroups: alt.support.trauma-ptsd View: Complete Thread (48 articles) | Original Format Date: 2002-03-19 18:54:13 PST Hay Hoover! Your just another "whiner!" Calling people names and categories is your "sick" way of classifying people who don’t agree with you or your friend LEL. You two are a pair! Perfect match! Don’t pick on Nancy..pick on me..I am a man and I’ll give it back to you! As to starting "disturbances" here… Your wrong and misinformed as usual..venting to vent without substance, You know what I hate…and why I am upset? I hate it when somebody "plays" at being a Vet and isn’t! That’s exactly what’s going on here. This has been exposed before and if Levitt wants it exposed again..then he should just keep it up! It is sickening to see a grown man pretend to be a vet and write the trash he does as if he been there…it is an insult to those that served! I hate a coward and a fraud! If the shoe fits Hoover…wear it, but it was meant for levitt! I don’t speak a lot, but when I do…it is NOT coming out of "lurk" mode to do so! I don’t hide behind a lie or pretend to be something I am not! I didn’t start this, I just commented on it! Your use of vulgarisms and trash talk show the true type of small man you are…and then you have the Guts to pick on a woman! Your real brave Hoover, real brave! SAM (VM05 Da Nang) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
In article <kNS09.26$7p.35…@news20.bellglobal.com>, larryhoo…@sympatico.ca says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > news:pqu6kug8sp1jl1adrg2c7ai34bb895jv1o@4ax.com… > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:59:31 -0400, "Larry Hoover" > > <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > > >news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… > > >> http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm > > >> The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and > > >> effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent > > >> research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception > > >> among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% > > >> (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with > > >> some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select > > >> populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception > > >> is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting > > >> complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is > > >> the potential for secondary gain. > > >I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable > > >statistic on any of the above groups. > > nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work > > whatsoever > I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the > context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context > of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to > the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
Did Hecate accidentally touch a sore spot? saying "unless you are a malingerer drawing disabilty benefits whilst working or something I dont suppose you have to worry" you protest too much You yourself are one of the people the article talks of arent you? of course you have to worry Dont bother to deny it MESSAGE-ID:<01HW.B8D4DEB700026D7706562…@SMTP-Server.NC.RR.Com> I think Larry, what bothers me the most, is your attack on certain individuals. Because their beliefs are different than yours, you say that they are not responsible. Because, I did not agree with you about A.A., I too am irresponsible. I guess my question for you is: have you been responsible for many of the things that you have done? You know that I don’t lie about the ‘hoarding’ of medication… You showed me the boxes of unused meds. You also told me that you led your psychiatrist to believe that you took these meds. You know that you continued to receive disability and welfare insurance while you were working. ———–
Response:
In this very newsgroup, "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: >I’d sure hate to have my fate in any part depend on the outcome of this >particular test instrument. No less than one if four of the malingerers >identified were not malingerers.
You have a one in 10 chance of getting a correct diagnosis from your first psychiatrist.
Response:
"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message
news:pqu6kug8sp1jl1adrg2c7ai34bb895jv1o@4ax.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:59:31 -0400, "Larry Hoover" > <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > >news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… > >> http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm > >> The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and > >> effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent > >> research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception > >> among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% > >> (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with > >> some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select > >> populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception > >> is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting > >> complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is > >> the potential for secondary gain. > >I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable > >statistic on any of the above groups. > nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work > whatsoever
I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
Response:
"Larry Hoover" <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kNS09.26$7p.35453@news20.bellglobal.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > news:pqu6kug8sp1jl1adrg2c7ai34bb895jv1o@4ax.com… > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:59:31 -0400, "Larry Hoover" > > <larryhoo…@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > >"Hecate" <nos…@all.com> wrote in message > > >news:ssf6kuk0pojaa2803e6e0fer3jlq9bdl6d@4ax.com… > > >> http://assessments.ncspearson.com/assessments/resources/vipreview.htm > > >> The importance of specific examination of malingering, deception and > > >> effort in neuropsychological examination is underscored by recent > > >> research suggesting that the base rate for malingering or deception > > >> among individuals claiming cognitive impairment may range from 20% > > >> (Griffin et al., 1996) to 40% (Greiffenstein, Baker & Gola, 1994) with > > >> some studies suggesting much higher rates of dissimulation in select > > >> populations. Multimodal assessment of effort, motivation and deception > > >> is a necessary component of evaluations involving presenting > > >> complaints of a cognitive or neuropsychological nature where there is > > >> the potential for secondary gain. > > >I have to wonder at the appropriateness of posting this questionable > > >statistic on any of the above groups. > > nothing questionable about Greiffenstein, Baker & Golas work > > whatsoever > I’m not questioning their work, as I have not seen the data set nor the > context in which it is framed. The issue is that malingering in the context > of litigation for damages following closed-head injuries has no relevance to > the groups listed. You’re just a troll.
Back to your usual personal abuse when your red herrings and faulty logic exposed? The validity of neurological tests are extremely relevant to ALL these groups, not withstanding your pathetic attempts to start one of your pissing contests again. Mind you anyone who knows your history cant blame you for finding the subject embarrassing and wanting to change it as quick as possible – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.