Getting caught in court: Base rates for malingering in Australasian litigants

Danielle Clifford, Mitchell K. Byrne, Chris Allan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Increasingly, ’experts’ wishing to give opinion-based testimony in court are required to justify their judgements. Following the landmark ruling in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the scrutiny of the courts has extended to experts’ knowledge about the reliability and validity of the tools and measures upon which they base their judgements. One area of particular concern to the courts is that of malingering. However, there is a paucity of data on base rates of malingering in Australasian samples. This study used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) F-scale to determine a base rate for malingering in a litigating sample. Relevant to international literature, unusual gender differences were found and speculation on what this means is discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)197-201
Number of pages5
JournalPsychiatry, Psychology and Law
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2004


Dive into the research topics of 'Getting caught in court: Base rates for malingering in Australasian litigants'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this