{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017045454545454544, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.776923076923077, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
Assessment of Litigation Context, Suggestion, and Malingering Measures among Simulated Personal Injury Litigants

The present simulation study examined the extent to which participation in litigation and the suggestion to malinger leads individuals to exaggerate the nature and severity of reported symptoms. The degree to which two commonly used forensic assessment instruments, the M-FAST and the Atypical Responding (ATR) validity scale from the TSI, were able to differentiate fake or exaggerated symptoms from genuine symptoms was also examined. Results indicated that individuals in an active litigation context exhibited more extreme patterns of responding than individuals who were not in litigation. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses supported that both the M-FAST and the TSI-ATR may be useful in discriminating between malingering and honest responders.