Internal and external validity of the BIDR was examined in college students and with forensic clients. The study also investigated the equivalence of the original format of the BIDR and the revised (the PDS). Results showed the IM scales of the BIDR and the PDS can be regarded as equivalent, but the SDE scales can not. Correlations with concurrent validity scales were generally stronger for the IM scale than the SDE scale. For both groups, the SDE and IM scales were substantially correlated with each other. Analyses of the undergraduate data did not support Paulhus' intention of two major factors for either the BIDR or the PDS; but did show this pattern for forensic data.

Malingering is likely to occur when one has a lot to gain or lose from the existence of a physical injury or mental disease or defect. There are many procedures in place to help professionals determine whether or not one is malingering that follow either the global-signs-of-lying model or the accuracy of knowledge model, which rely on physiological and cognitive criterion, respectively. The present study aims to determine whether or not a claim of ambidexterity might be a potential indicator of malingering. 310 reports from an experienced neuropsychologist were analyzed and coded for statistical analyses. Comparisons between clients who claimed single-handedness and clients who claimed ambidexterity, primarily in Rule 11 competency to stand trial evaluations, support the hypothesis that clients who claim ambidexterity are more likely to be malingering. This information opens the door for more research on the use of this criteria in making a clinical judgment on malingering.

Evidence thus far has not lent credence to facilitate lie detection by the average person. According to studies, there are five major signs of lying: lip pursing, narrowed eyebrows, shoulder shrugs, looking to the left, and smirking. The present study aims to determine whether training people in detecting the five signs of lying will facilitate lie detection in the average person. We analyzed the accuracy of lie detection by examining the verdicts of 155 undergraduate students during simulated police interrogations. Comparisons between the trained and untrained subjects support the hypothesis that the average person is no better than chance at detecting lies through non-verbal cues.

Abstract
Diagnosing psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) requires admission to an epilepsy monitoring unit, which is a lengthy and expensive process. Despite the cost of and time commitment to this inpatient evaluation, a definitive diagnosis at the end isn’t always guaranteed. Therefore, predictor variables such as demographic information and psychological testing scores can help improve the accuracy of diagnosing PNES or epilepsy at the end of a patient’s EMU admission. Locke et al. have demonstrated that the SOM scale and SOM-C subscale on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) are the best indicators for predicting PNES diagnosis, with an optimal cut score of T≥70 on both of these scales. The aim of the current study was to determine whether evaluating male and female performance separately on these relevant PAI scales improves the accuracy of diagnosing PNES. The results support the hypothesis, such that male optimal cut scores on the SOM and SOM C scales are T=80 and T=75, respectively, and female optimal cut scores on the SOM and SOM C scales are T=71 and T=72, respectively. Utilizing the results of this study can help clinicians diagnose patients with PNES or epilepsy at the end of EMU evaluation with more certainty.

Item response theory (IRT) and related latent variable models represent modern psychometric theory, the successor to classical test theory in psychological assessment. While IRT has become prevalent in the assessment of ability and achievement, it has not been widely embraced by clinical psychologists. This appears due, in part, to psychometrists' use of unidimensional models despite evidence that psychiatric disorders are inherently multidimensional. The construct validity of unidimensional and multidimensional latent variable models was compared to evaluate the utility of modern psychometric theory in clinical assessment. Archival data consisting of 688 outpatients' presenting concerns, psychiatric diagnoses, and item level responses to the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were extracted from files at a university mental health clinic. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that models with oblique factors and/or item cross-loadings better represented the internal structure of the BSI in comparison to a strictly unidimensional model. The models were generally equivalent in their ability to account for variance in criterion-related validity variables; however, bifactor models demonstrated superior validity in differentiating between mood and anxiety disorder diagnoses. Multidimensional IRT analyses showed that the orthogonal bifactor model partitioned distinct, clinically relevant sources of item variance. Similar results were also achieved through multivariate prediction with an oblique simple structure model. Receiver operating characteristic curves confirmed improved sensitivity and specificity through multidimensional models of psychopathology. Clinical researchers are encouraged to consider these and other comprehensive models of psychological distress.