Assessment of Malingering among Servicemembers with a Focused Examination of Explanatory Models

Umbrasas briefly mentioned established models of malingering that sought to understand the driving motivations for feigning mental disorders. He used these models as a point of departure to consider the unique experiences and enduring challenges of active and retired servicemembers. For military malingering, he identified acute distress malingering and disability malingering with the former occurring within the first five years and the latter after a military career had been established. To provide a strong foundation, this commentary revisits three explanatory models of malingering (i.e., pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational) that have been empirically tested. Of these, the adaptational model appears the best suited in the military context to explain nongenuine responding because most mandatory evaluations carry highly negative consequences, such as seriously damaging future careers in the armed forces. Most examinees would be seen as denying and defensive, however, the polar opposite of malingering. When symptoms are eventually reported, Umbrasas acknowledges the temptation to consider this atypical presentation as possible evidence of malingering. We concur with Umbrasas's conclusion that such an extrapolation would be generally unwarranted. In summary, the overriding goal of this commentary is to understand Umbrasas's thought-provoking contributions to military malingering in the larger landscape of explanatory models of malingering.

Automated summary

This article reviews three empirically tested models of malingering and explores malingering in the military context. The author suggests that the adaptational model is most suitable for explaining non-genuine responses in the military, as most mandatory evaluations have negative consequences that lead examinees to deny and resist, contrary to malingering.