Beyond Rare-Symptoms Endorsement: a Clinical Comparison Simulation Study Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29)

A clinical comparison simulation study using the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in Lithuania

“…c These data refer to the depression-related condition described in Giromini, Barbosa et al's (2019) article. d These data refer to the depression-related subsample of Giromini, Viglione et al's (2019) article: this study used a within-subject design, in which participants were asked to take the IOP-29 three times, one time answering honestly, one time faking depression, and one time responding with a random-like approach.…”

“…First, it is notably shorter than other popular stand-alone instruments such as the (Giromini, Barbosa et al, 2019;Viglione et al, 2017), and that it has increased classification accuracy compared to the SIMS, especially with psychosisrelated conditions (Giromini, Viglione, Pignolo, & Zennaro, 2018). Also of note is that it shows incremental validity when used either with the TOMM or MMPI compared to using each instrument alone (Giromini, Lettieri et al, 2019;. Furthermore, the IOP-29 may be applied to various forensic evaluation contexts with no need to adjust its cut scores, as it has been shown to perform similarly well with four different types of symptom presentations (those related to depression, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)) (Giromini, Viglione, Pignolo, & Zennaro, 2019).…”

An Inventory of Problems–29 Study on Random Responding Using Experimental Feigners, Honest Controls, and Computer-Generated Data

“…Lastly, our Sim-RRS was calculated as the sum of the z-transformed infrequency and inconsistency indicators developed using the sample of experimental simulators. Although summing (or averaging) z-transformed scores is a widely adopted approach in symptom validity assessment research (e.g., Giromini et al, 2019b;Rowland et al, 2017), future studies might try testing different aggregation methods (e.g., based on factor analysis).…”

Comparability and Validity of the Online and In-Person Administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29

“…Indeed, as it does not primarily rely on the rare-symptoms endorsement detection strategy, the IOP-29 likely offers valuable, complementary information (and thereby incremental validity) when used in combination with other useful SVTs such as the F scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-3;Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a, b), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997), or the Self-Reported Symptom Inventory (SRSI; Merten et al, 2016). In support of this hypothesis, a recent clinical comparison simulation study focused on depressionrelated complaints found that using the IOP-29 together with the F scales of the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al, 2001), in fact, provided statistically significant incremental validity over using either instrument alone (Giromini et al, 2019). Research Foundation As noted by the Editor-in-Chief of Psychological Injury and Law and his colleagues in a recent article aimed at introducing the field of psychological injury and law, the IOP-29 is "a newer stand-alone SVT that has the required psychometric properties for use in forensic disability and related assessments.…”

“…Although the IOP-29 was published only relatively recently in 2017 (Viglione et al, 2017), all 12 published studies since then support its validity and effectiveness (Gegner et al, 2021;Giromini et al, 2018Giromini et al, , 2020aIlgunaite et al, 2020;Roma et al, 2020;Viglione et al, 2017Viglione et al, , 2019Winters et al, 2020). Specifically, the results of these studies suggest that (a) the validity and classification accuracy of the IOP-29 compares favorably to that of popular measures like the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997) (Giromini et al, 2018) or Rey Fifteen-Item Test (FIT; Lezak, 1995;Rey, 1941) (Gegner et al, 2021); (b) the IOP-29 is similarly valid when addressing feigning of different conditions such as depression, neuropsychological impairment, psychosis and/or PTSD (e.g., Giromini et al, 2020b;Ilgunaite et al, 2020;Winters et al, 2020); (c) the validity of the IOP-29 is maintained both when adopting a simulation/analogue (e.g., Gegner et al, 2021) and when relying on a known-groups comparison (Roma et al, 2020) research paradigm; (d) the IOP-29 yields incremental validity when used in combination with other SVTs (Giromini et al, 2019) or PVTs (Giromini et al, 2020a); (e) the IOP-29 preserves its effectiveness also when used outside the USA, in countries such as Australia (Gegner et al, 2021), the UK (Winters et al, 2020), Italy (Giromini et al, 2018), Portugal (Giromini et al, 2020a), or Lithuania (Ilgunaite et al, 2020).…”