A Comparison of Forensic and Nonforensic Malingerers: A Prototypical Analysis of Explanatory Models

Explanatory models of malingering strive to understand the primary motivation underlying attempts to feign. Rogers, Sewell, and Goldstein (1994) provided empirical support for the conceptualization of pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational models. In the current study, a prototypical analysis of 221 forensic experts results in a slightly refined formulation: the adaptational model was decomposed into its two broad dimensions (cost–benefit analysis and adversarial setting). An important finding is that the factor structure for the explanatory models remained stable when applied to both forensic and nonforensic cases. As a first investigation, significant differences were observed in prototypical cases of malingering by the category of referral (forensic or nonforensic) and by type of feigning (mental disorders, cognitive impairment, and medical syndromes). Surprisingly, the feigning of medical syndromes appeared to play a relatively prominent role in both forensic and nonforensic cases and to be influenced by the apparent adversarial context of the assessment. Finally, important gender differences were observed, especially with nonforensic prototypical cases of malingering.     

Evaluation and treatment of insanity acquittees in the community

This paper describes the monitored outpatient treatment program for Psychiatry Security Review Board (PSRB) clients in the largest single community treatment agency in the Oregon system. We describe 161 persons referred to this agency for evaluation and treatment. Ninety-one PSRB clients received treatment and of this group 51% had their conditional release revoked by the PSRB. The most frequent cause of revocation was noncompliance with treatment. There were only 11 crimes committed during the study period, four of which were in the felony range. The majority of PSRB clients are chronically mentally ill persons. We discuss both the treatment approach and our results in light of a recently published research agenda for insanity acquittees.     

Strategic Challenger Entry in a Federal System: The Role of Economic and Political Conditions in State Legislative Competition

Over a third of state legislators do not face challengers when seeking reelection. Existing analyses of state legislative contestation almost exclusively focus on the stable institutional features surrounding elections and ignore conditions that change between elections. I remedy this oversight by investigating how political contexts influence challenger entry. State legislators—particularly members of the governor's party—more often face opposition during weak state economies, but the president's copartisans are even more likely to receive a challenger when the president is unpopular. My findings suggest that both national‐ and state‐level political conditions have an important impact on challengers' entry strategies.     

Predicting Outcomes with Juvenile Court Case Histories

This report supplements a prior article in this journal (Rogers and Williams, 1994). Utilizing Ted Palmer's 1991 formulation, we identified a set of indicators relevant to juvenile court decision-making and to policy formulation. Here, through a more stringent statistical technique, we provide additional evidence of the potential that juvenile court histories possess for both theory and practice. We explore case materials gained and maintained by juvenile probation officers as a way of generating outcome predictors for whether youth receive probation or institutionalization. Using discriminant function analysis, we obtain relatively good prediction. Delinquency history and social psychological variables are found to enhance prediction of case outcomes. Contrary to some scholars, we believe the juvenile court is here to stay. Thus, the fundamental issue becomes one of making it a more efficient, effective instrument for reintegrating youths it must serve. As this institution approaches its centennial in 1999, we believe the court must become a focal point of research. This article is intended to further that task. After identifying the three strongest predictive variables (offense after first hearing, alienation, and denial of blame), we employ our seven key indicators as a guide for illustrating their everyday application for juvenile probation officers working with their youthful clientele.