Detecting exaggeration and malingering with the trail making test

The purpose of this study was to examine whether unusual performance on the Trail Making Test could be indicative of deliberate exaggeration. Participants were 571 patients seen as part of a hospital trauma service who had acute traumatic brain injuries, and 228 patients involved in head injury litigation. As expected, the hospital patients with more severe traumatic brain injuries performed more poorly than the patients with less severe brain injuries on Trails A and Trails B. Cutoff score tables were developed for the patients with acute traumatic brain injuries for the total sample and by injury severity groups. Scores falling at or below the 5th percentile were considered suspicious for possible exaggeration. The performances of the head injury litigants who exaggerated on at least one well-validated symptom validity test were compared to these cutoffs. Very high positive predictive values for individuals with very mild head injuries on Trails A and B were identified (i.e., both 100%); lower positive predictive values were obtained for individuals with more severe head injuries (55.6-60%). The negative predictive values were only moderate (range=66.4-78.2%), and the sensitivity was very low (range = 7.1-18.5%) for all groups. Scores that fall in the range of possible biased responding should be considered "red flags" for the clinician because they likely do not make biological or psychometric sense. However, the sensitivity of the test for deliberate exaggeration is very low, so clinicians who rely on this test in isolation to identify deliberately poor performance will fail to identify the vast majority of cases.