Article archive / February 1, 2012
Originally published: . Volume 3, No. 6. Source pages: 1, 3.
Executive Director of Louisiana Disability Determination Services (DDS), Ms. Terri Spurgeon, sent a message to consultative examination providers cautioning them about a presentation hosted by the Louisiana Psychological Association. The seminar was presented by Dr. Michael Chafetz who gave information about statistical predictions and validity for Social Security evaluations, generally performed by psychologists.
Ms. Spurgeon noted that the seminar was not “reviewed” or “sanctioned” by the Social Security Administration, and had not been checked for “compliance with SSA and DDS policy, rules, and regulations on evaluating mental impairments for Social Security Disability.”
In the memo, dated January 11, she advised consultative providers to “continue to adhere to all guidance and instructions you have received directly from DDS professional relations officers […] and psychological consultants.”
The Times tried to speak with Ms. Spurgeon but was unsuccessful in reaching her for comment.
The two-hour, online seminar that prompted the DDS January 11 memo was titled “Current Issues in Social Security Disability Evaluations.” The presentation included statistical methods and published research concerning malingering on social security examinations, data about false positives, and validity for these evaluations.
Dr. Michael Chafetz, a board certified clinical and neuropsychologist from New Orleans has published a number of research articles on this subject. He also presented this topic recently as an invited speaker at the American Psychological Association convention in 2011.
In one of his studies of comparison groups he and coauthors found that low- functioning individuals have clear differences, depending if they are motivated to do well or to do poorly. He discovered this in a comparison between those seeking benefits, to those seeking a job, to those seeking to regain custody of their children.
He also has found that up to 42 to 46 percent of disability claimants score as probable malingering and that with empirical data, psychologists can produce a more accurate prediction both of those who are truly disabled and also of those who are not disabled. In the January seminar, he calculated that savings for accurate predictions could total $180 billion.
His research, a set of publications beginning in 2006 includes, “Malingering on the Social Security Disability Consultative Exam: A New Rating Scale,” in Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, a 2008 article in The Clinical Neuro- psychologist, “Malingering o the Social Security Disability Consultative Exam: Predictors and Base Rates,” and a 2011 article in Applied Neuro- psychology, “A Case of Malingering by Proxy in a Social Security Disability Psychological Consultative Examination.”
In a 2010 paper examining SSA policies, “Symptom validity issues in the psychological consultative examination for social security disability” (The Clinical Neuropsychologist), Chafetz pointed to policies in SSA that promote a high rate of false positives for disabling illnesses. And, he pointed to ethical issues when the psychologist is asked to do less that his or her best to make sure of findings are valid. Chafetz concluded that SSA should consider revising policies so that psychologists can better identify those truly disabled.
According to Dr. Chafetz, in 2008 the Board of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) provided a 90-minute conference call for Social Security Administration leaders to discuss validity issues in the psychological exam. During this call, the AACN Board members provided SSA leaders with relevant information and invited the leaders to outline their criticisms. However, the SSA leaders did not follow up on that offer.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Disability Insurance program is not financially sustainable and funds will be exhausted by 2018.
Dr. Mike Chafetz is a New Orleans neuropsychologist, board certified in Clinical Neuropsychology, a reviewer for Applied Neuropsychology, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, and on the Board of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.