- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 938
- Reaction score
- 92
Is there any definitive consensus on whether it's more common in either gender?
Do you know of a good book that is more geared towards clinical use?
It is still under copyright and needs to be purchased from the publisher, who in this case is PAR.Is there an easy way to get a hold of the M-FAST? I can't seem to find it online. Is it in any books?
I looked at book reviews on Amazon and some people don't find that book you recommended, very user-friendly
I actually very much agree the book is not user-friendly, but it still is the best book out there on the topic....
Rogers book is entertaining if you take it one chapter at a time concerning a specific malingering issue. E.g. if you have someone malingering a specific issue--e.g. memory problems, then reading that specific section is actually very entertaining because it contains detailed information that is very case specific....
Whopper--does that book you're recommending have the M-FAST and SIRS in it? How long does the SIRS take to administer? How long does the M-FAST take?
Does that book you're recommending have the M-FAST and SIRS in it?
Of course, it didn't help that I asked the PD why he diagnosed the defendant with schizophrenia when it was readily apparent he wasn't psychotic, and the psychological tests also backed that he wasn't mentally ill.
The psychologist during his testimony factually brought up data that clinical opinion is only so accurate and that misdiagnosis is actually quite common. Then he brought up very good numbers showing the mathematical accuracy of his assessments based on the SIRS among other tests that were way above clinical accuracy.
I've read some horrific assessment reports where it was clear the clinican barely grasped the basics of the assessments, and even a mediocre clinican could tell that the report was useless. It is one thing to look like an idiot in front of a peer, but it is another to do it in a formal proceeding like a court case or review committee.
You have to know the mechanics of what you're doing.
That quote is so much more important, in almost everything we do as physicians and as psychiatrists, than most of us realize.
It can be so disastrous to accept the basic interpretation of a test without thinking about what the test actually measures and how applicable it is in the precise conditions it was used.
That won't happen. Assessments with the best designs and statistical report still requires integration of other information, which a manual cannot address at the level needed. Sadly people believe that just because they get data/results mean they have what they need, but it is that evaluation and integration of the data which makes the difference. The BP example is a great one because one can follow a manual, but nothing is practiced in a vacuum.I agree with you. However, I think last few decades in particular we have seen a movement from the subjective towards the objective. There may come a point that we all rely on manuals exclusively; and subjective interpretations, experience, and other individual factors become irrelevant. That may be a "side effect" of standardization.
Context, always context.That won't happen. Assessments with the best designs and statistical report still requires integration of other information, which a manual cannot address at the level needed. Sadly people believe that just because they get data/results mean they have what they need, but it is that evaluation and integration of the data which makes the difference. The BP example is a great one because one can follow a manual, but nothing is practiced in a vacuum.
I'll pick on neuropsych again, since that is what I am most familiar. I have seen way too many reports where the clinician reports the data, but does not sufficiently address what it means. Just providing the scores and how they compare to the norms does little to advance the case. This is where many "dabblers" do the most damage, because they know enough to administer and (hopefully) score it correctly, but from then on it gets dicey. I have techs/graduate students to handle the administration and scoring....but the data are useless without being able to use it within the context of the patient's case.
I think there's a ssemi-important distinction to be made between flat out malingering and "malingering without insight" (Yeah, I know it's not in any version of the DSM...). Just had a young man this week admitted because he was in pain from a jaw fx, couldn't get anything soft/pureed to eat at the shelter, and was in some psychological distress as a result... What family he had in the area was unwilling or unable to help, so all he knew to do was go to the hospital & get some help... Extremely weak admission, but he was hardly coming in blatantly saying "I need secondary gain". He just figured "Isn't that what a hospital is supposed to do?" 🙄