Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
There has recently been a dramatic increase of empirical studies that investigate methods for detecting malingering of cognitive deficits. The present review focuses on a comparison of simulated and suspected malingerers in the malingering literature, and critiques the numerous approaches to the detection of malingering. The approaches that are reviewed include detection of floor effects, discrepancies of information, response bias, neuropsychological tests and batteries, symptom validity testing, and anomalous performance on memory tests. The latter approach has only recently been proposed by researchers and may show the most promise.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02208438 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!