Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Educational Research Cognition and Development
First Committee Member
W. Paul Jones
Second Committee Member
Third Committee Member
Fourth Committee Member
Number of Pages
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to put people with mental retardation to death for capital crimes (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Justice Scalia dissented, suggesting that mental retardation is a condition easy to feign. The current study examined whether participants provided with the definition of mental retardation and adaptive behavior ("informed malingering group") are any better at malingering having mental retardation than participants not provided with the definitions ("malingering group"). Three groups of participants participated in this study: the control group, the malingering group, and the informed malingering group. All participants completed an intellectual assessment and two adaptive behavior assessments. Results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in performance on any of the assessments between the two malingering conditions, and both groups over exaggerated their deficits to an extent that their malingering attempts were conspicuous.
Adaptability (Psychology); Adjustment (Psychology); Adaptive behavior; Atkins v Virginia; Capital punishment; Legal; Malinger; Malingering; Mental retardation
Applied Behavior Analysis | Criminal Law | Educational Psychology | Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Kadlubek, Renee M., "Adaptive Behavior Malingering in Legal Claims of Mental Retardation" (2012). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1584.
IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/