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

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.