Abstract
Coaching is a topic of utmost importance for forensic neuropsychological assessment, and symptom validity tests (SVTs) should be resistant against it. Four groups of experimental malingerers (n = 15, each) were given scenarios to feign cognitive symptoms after traumatic brain injury. Group A obtained a basic scenario. For Group B, symptom information was added. Group C received an explicit warning against exaggerating symptom presentation. Group D obtained a specific coaching which contained an introduction into principles of effort measurement. All groups were given a short neuropsychological battery including three SVTs: the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test (ASTM), the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and the Word Completion Memory Test (WCMT). While a general trend for gradually better results in SVTs from Group A to Group D was observed, only in Group D were pass rates elevated for the MSVT and the WCMT. Not a single participant passed the ASTM test. Coaching appears to be more effective when principles of effort testing are described in detail. The use of more than one SVT in an evaluation is recommended.