Another Perspective of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test – Part I: A Narrative Review

Detullio, David

doi:10.24018/ejmed.2021.3.6.1142

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with those found in other malingering-related meta-analyses (Aparcero et al, 2021; Detullio et al, 2019; Martin et al, 2020). To analyze possible sources of heterogeneity, we selected a set of moderating variables identified in previous research (Aparcero et al, 2021; Detullio, 2021; Detullio et al, 2019; van Impelen et al, 2014). Our findings suggest that the language used may be a moderator variable for the cutoff point FDS ≥ .30, but not for the other two inspected cutoff scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because no instrument has yet been developed to assess risk of bias in symptom validity studies, an ad hoc checklist was developed using the methodological flaws identified by Detullio (2021) and Rogers et al (2020). The checklist was composed of 13 items assessing different aspects of the study design that, if absent, constituted a source of bias.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Puente-López¹,

Pina²,

López‐Nicolás³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

29 (IOP-29) is a 29-item self-administered symptom validity test (SVT) that assesses the credibility of clinical presentations related to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression/anxiety, psychosis, cognitive impairment and combination thereof. To date, no publications have summarized the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 using a bivariate meta-analytical approach that preserves the twodimensional nature of the estimators. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the IOP-29 according to the relevant guidelines. Twenty-one independent samples were included, with a total sample size of 4,163 participants. The results indicated that the IOP-29 is able to discriminate adequately between instructed simulators and healthy controls/clinical patients. Using the recommended cutoff (False Disorder Probability Score [FDS], ≥.50), a sensitivity of 82% was achieved, maintaining specificity at 93% (false positive rate of 7%). The language of the test and the type of comparison group have been identified as possible sources of heterogeneity. Specificity decreases for the non-English version of the IOP-29, for the FDS ≥ .30, and also decreases for studies using clinical controls, for all three cutoff scores. In general, our findings support the usefulness of the IOP-29 as an SVT; however, most of the included studies use a simulation design and have been coauthored by the test authors. Likewise, about half of the studies did not include bona fide patient controls but only nonclinical controls. The results obtained are highly promising, but further research, especially that using the criterion group paradigm, is recommended. Public Significance StatementFollowing a bivariate meta-analytic model, we have evaluated the discriminative ability of the IOP-29, a novel symptom validity test. The results obtained indicate that it is able to discriminate adequately between instructed simulators and healthy controls/clinical patients.

show abstract