A Commentary on the MND Model and the Boone Critique: "Saying It Doesn't Make It So"

We appreciate Boone's (2011, this issue) critique of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson's (2011, this issue) analysis of the Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) criteria. She raised good points and appeared in general agreement regarding several crucial limitations of the MND model. However, Boone remained mostly silent on several issues including the compelling results from our methodological review of MND studies and Criteria A through D. When provided, her comments tended to be very selective and were often presented with little or no empirical support. This contrasting pattern of strong statements and weak evidence appears to unintentionally parallel the MND model, which was documented in our original analysis. As a result of her criticism, however, we clarified our point regarding methodological limitations in establishing levels of TBI and its potential relevance to determinations of feigned cognitive impairment. We hope that these spirited discussions will stimulate a much-needed review and a fundamental revamping, if not replacement, of the MND model. © 2011 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.