Malingering of a cognitive deficit (i.e. memory and/or intellectual functioning)
commonly occurs in civil and criminal cases. The aim of the study was to investigate
the relationship between malingering and personality traits in civil cases. 63
participants (46 male, 17 female) seeking financial compensation following an
accidental injury and referred for a neuropsychiatric assessment completed the Test of
Malingering (TOMM), the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), and the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RS). 23 participants (36.5%) malingered on the
TOMM and four (6.3%) malingered on the RSPM. No significant difference was found
in the personality scores between the malingerers and non-malingerers. Regression
analyses, using malingering on the TOMM as a continuous outcome variable, showed
no effects of personality on the extent of malingering on Trial 1, Trial 2 or Retention
trial. There was no agreement found between independent clinical impressions and
malingering on the tests. The lack of a relationship between malingering and
personality suggests that malingering is situation specific and influenced by
‘adaptational’ factors (i.e., a cost-benefit analysis) rather than ‘criminological’
motivational factors. The findings suggest that malingering tests should be
administered routinely in assessments of civil compensation cases.