Detection of malingering: psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the structured interview of reported symptoms-2

Liu, Chang; Liu, Zhening; Chiu, Helen F. K.; Carl, Tam Wai-Cheong; Zhang, Huiran; Wang, Peng; Wu, Guowei; Mwansisya, Tumbewene E; Cao, Long‐Long; Hu, Aimin; Yu, Wang; Zhang, Xue

doi:10.1186/1471-244x-13-254

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 45 articles and dissertations examined, three peer reviewed articles each reported the findings of two separate, but related, studies (Liu et al, 2013; Merten, Bossink, & Schmand, 2007; Vossler-Thies, Stevens, Engel, & Licha, 2013). Therefore, a total of 48 studies were examined.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural feigning assessment: A systematic review of feigning instruments used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples.

Nijdam‐Jones

Rosenfeld

2017

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cross-cultural validity of feigning instruments and cut-scores is a critical concern for forensic mental health clinicians. This systematic review evaluated feigning classification accuracy and effect sizes across instruments and languages by summarizing 45 published peer-reviewed articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations conducted in Europe, Asia, and North America using linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples. The most common psychiatric symptom measures used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples included the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The most frequently studied cognitive effort measures included the Word Recognition Test, the Test of Memory Malingering, and the Rey 15-item Memory test. The classification accuracy of these measures is compared and the implications of this research literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural feigning assessment: A systematic review of feigning instruments used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples.

Nijdam‐Jones

Rosenfeld

2017

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such instruments do have empirical support for their ability to detect malingering (e.g. Vitacco et al, 2008;Hawes & Boccaccini, 2009;Iverson and Lange, 2006;Liu et al, 2013). In a review of a sample of American forensic practitioners, the MMPi-2 and the SIRS were suggested to be the most effective instruments for the detection of malingering (Lally, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mission impossible? Assessing the veracity of a mental health problem as result of a road traffic accident: a preliminary review of UK experts’ practices

Cartwright

Roach

Armitage

2018

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of people claiming for personal injury after being involved in a road traffic accident (RTA) in the United Kingdom continues to soar. In April 2015, the UK Government intervened to implement measures aimed at reducing the prevalence of fraud within such personal injury claims. However, these reforms did not include claims for mental disorder that arise because of a RTA despite being responsible for substantially larger pay-outs in comparison to claims for whiplash. The present study examines the assessment practice for detecting fraudulent claims of this nature using a mixed methods survey analysing UK medicolegal professionals' assessment methodologies (N=37). The findings suggest comprehensively that assessment practices in this field are idiosyncratic. The findings evidence limitations in all aspects of the assessment process from medico-legal assessors being asked to undertake examinations without the presence of medical records to 44% of examiners being unaware of the three types of malingering. The article concludes with recommendations for improving both assessments and the assessment process for assessing RTA claimants in the UK.

show abstract

“…Using a three‐step decision model, the examinees are classified into one of the following categories: feigning, intermediate‐evaluate, intermediate‐general, disengagement, and genuine responding (Rogers et al, ). The Chinese version of the SIRS‐2 was available for research purposes (Liu et al, ). A strict translation procedure, which included forward (English to Chinese) and backward (Chinese to English) translation, was implemented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, criterion‐related validity was examined by using known‐groups comparisons, and there were satisfactory effect sizes of the primary scales for group differences. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 and 1.00, respectively, for the sample of known‐groups comparisons (Liu et al, ). Generally speaking, the psychometric properties of the Chinese SIRS‐2 were compatible with the English version.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pilot study on the Chinese Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 in detecting feigned mental disorders: Simulators classified by using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is often used in forensic psychological/psychiatric assessment. This was a pilot study on the utility of the Chinese MMPI-2 in detecting feigned mental disorders. The sample consisted of 194 university students who were either simulators (informed or uninformed) or controls. All the participants were administered the Chinese MMPI-2 and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-2 (SIRS-2). The results of the SIRS-2 were utilized to classify the participants into the feigning or control groups. The effectiveness of eight detection indices was investigated by using item analysis, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results indicated that informed-simulating participants with prior knowledge of mental disorders did not perform better in avoiding feigning detection than uninformed-simulating participants. In addition, the eight detection indices of the Chinese MMPI-2 were effective in discriminating participants in the feigning and control groups, and the best cut-off scores of three of the indices were higher than those obtained from the studies using the English MMPI-2. Thus, in this sample of university students, the utility of the Chinese MMPI-2 in detecting feigned mental disorders was tentatively supported, and the Chinese Infrequency Scale (ICH), a scale developed specifically for the Chinese MMPI-2, was also supported as a valid scale for validity checking.

show abstract

Detection of malingering: psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the structured interview of reported symptoms-2

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Cross-cultural feigning assessment: A systematic review of feigning instruments used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples.

Cross-cultural feigning assessment: A systematic review of feigning instruments used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples.

Mission impossible? Assessing the veracity of a mental health problem as result of a road traffic accident: a preliminary review of UK experts’ practices

A pilot study on the Chinese Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 in detecting feigned mental disorders: Simulators classified by using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About