{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0360128617363344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020578778135048232, 'mean_word_length': 5.224, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detecting the faking of amnesia: a comparison of the effectiveness of three different techniques for distinguishing simulators from patients with amnesia.

This paper compared the effectiveness of three different procedures that have been put forward as possible ways of distinguishing patients with genuine memory problems from those who are attempting to simulate amnesia. The performance of 20 patients with amnesia was compared with the performance of 20 normal control individuals and 20 normal individuals who had been asked to simulate amnesia on the distraction/no distraction test (Baker, Hanley, Kimmance, & Slade, 1993), the coin-in-the-hand test (Kapur, 1994) and word fragment completion (Horton, Smith, Barghout, & Connolly, 1992). The distraction/no distraction test and the coin-in-the-hand test both proved successful in distinguishing patients with amnesia from simulators (p < .01). Excellent performance by virtually all patients with amnesia coupled with chance or below chance performance by 19/20 simulators on the coin-in-the-hand test was particularly striking. Consistent with the results of Horton et al. ( 1992), the word fragment completion test successfully discriminated between the performance of simulators and controls (p < .01). However, the fragment completion test proved incapable of distinguishing between the performance of patients with amnesia and simulators (p > .05). It is argued that there may be problems inherent in the use of tests designed to investigate implicit memory in attempts to detect malingering.