Masters Degrees (Occupational Therapy)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/100741

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Occupational Therapy) by Subject "Capacity and disability"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A critical review of the validity of the Credibility Assessment Tool (CAT) and its application to the screening of suspected malingering
    (Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2011-03) Theunissen, Karen Sunette; Kemp, Rene; Pretorius, Blanche; University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Health Sciences. Dept. of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences. Occupational therapy.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Malingering, the intentional simulation or exaggeration of symptoms for secondary gain, has a significant financial impact on disability insurance given its prevalence. Multidisciplinary professionals involved in disability determination therefore require a tool which would assist in the screening of suspected malingerers. AIM: The Credibility Assessment Tool (CAT), a tool which was developed as part of the Performance APGAR, was reviewed in terms of its validity and application to the screening of malingering. Research objectives included the review of face and content validity through a literature review and concept analysis, as well as the review of construct and concurrent validity by comparing the results with the operationalised malingering construct and available malingering protocols. The adapted Slick criteria as proposed by Aronoff, applicable to chronic pain, neurocognitive, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, was identified as the most suitable criterion standard for use of comparison. DESIGN: The research design was a descriptive analytical design, which was performed retrospectively with a report review from insurance referrals to the researcher. Informed consent was obtained from insurers who legally own the reports. A saturated sample of convenience of 184 cases with depression and pain as predominant symptoms were analysed. Recall bias were minimised through omission of personal identifiers and the use of a peer check of 20 random cases. Results in the peer check were suggestive of poor inter-rater reliability, rather than recall bias. METHOD: Cases were analysed according to the guidelines from the respective authors of the CAT and adapted Slick criteria, however this was further defined to ensure that the study could be replicated. RESULTS: Face validity was adequate in terms of purpose, item selection and association between consistency criteria, however require improvement in terms of standardised instruction and weighting of the scale. Content validity was rated as adequate to excellent, given that it supports criteria linked to the malingering construct. Construct validity was adequate as demonstrated by association between concepts obtained through concept analysis. Correlation between the CAT and adapted Slick was strong (r>0.5) however caution is expressed that this requires further research. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for further research included the review of content validity with subject experts, criterion and predictive valid through a case-control study of known-groups, as well as the reliability of the CAT, and the use of specialised ADL indices for malingering detection. Adaptation to the CAT was depicted in the proposed Consistency Assessment Tool.