Clarification or Confusion? A Review of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson’s A Critical Analysis of the MND Criteria for Feigned Cognitive Impairment: Implications for Forensic Practice and Research

Rogers, Bender, and Johnson (in press) purport to identify the limitations of the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (Clin Neuropsychol,
13:545–561, 1999) criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) by claiming that the diagnostic algorithm has not been adequately
tested and overestimates the presence of malingered cognitive symptoms. The criticisms leveled at various MND criteria include
concerns regarding the appropriateness of including external incentives in the model, claims that variability in cognitive
symptom validity test hit rates compromises their use, and assertions that discrepancies between self-report and medical/psychosocial
records are widespread in credible patients, and the authors ultimately argue that the MND criteria do not meet the Daubert
standards. In this commentary in response to the Rogers et al. manuscript, the merits of the claimed criticisms are carefully
evaluated, with the conclusion that the authors have overstated the failings of the MND criteria, which remain an accurate
method for identifying noncredible patients in research and clinical settings.