Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frederick, R. I.
Right arrow Articles by Speed, F. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frederick, R. I.
Right arrow Articles by Speed, F. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

On the Interpretation of Below-Chance Responding in Forced-Choice Tests

Richard I. Frederick

U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners

F. Michael Speed

Texas A&M University

Two-alternative, forced-choice tests are commonly used to assess cooperation in examinations of neurocognitive functioning. Most commercially available tests do not primarily depend on comparing the total correct responses to the number expected by guessing. Nevertheless, the tests afford an opportunity to make stronger judgments about the cooperation of test-takers when the test score is lower than the range of scores expected for guessing. Unfortunately, many researchers and clinicians make serious errors in communicating what is "guessing" and what is "worse than guessing" (or malingering). This article describes proper methods of evaluating total correct responses on a forced-choice test.

Key Words: forced-choice testing • malingering • neuropsychology • hypothesis testing • psychological evidence

Assessment, Vol. 14, No. 1, 3-11 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191106292009
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?