M is For Performance Validity: The IOP-M Provides a Cost-Effective Measure of the Credibility of Memory Deficits during Neuropsychological Evaluations

Objective: Since its third edition (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) and in subsequent editions, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has favored the criminological model in relation to malingering. However, research on the relationship of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder to the propensity and ability to feign mental illness has yielded mixed results. Importantly, no study has yet examined the relationship between the Dark Tetrad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism) and the ability to fake mental illness in a credible manner. Our study aimed to fill this research gap by examining whether individuals with higher Dark Tetrad traits report more schizophrenia symptoms and more credibly fake schizophrenia when asked to do so. Method: Eighty-one nonclinical volunteers from Portugal took the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) and were instructed to respond honestly. They were then instructed to feign schizophrenia on the following tests: the Eppendorf Schizophrenia Inventory (ESI), the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29), and the memory add-on of the IOP-29 (i.e., IOP-M). Results: None of the SD4 scores correlated significantly with the ESI, IOP-29, and IOP-M scores, and all effect sizes were small. Of note, the standard cutoff score of the IOP-29 (i.e., ≥.50) correctly classified 90.1% of participants as fakers (i.e., sensitivity = .90), and half of the very few false-negative classifications of the IOP-29 were correctly classified as noncredible results by the IOP-M. Conclusions: The ability to plausibly fake schizophrenia is comparable in individuals with higher and lower Dark Tetrad traits. Also, the IOP-29 and the IOP-M showed excellent validity, further supporting their effectiveness in assessing symptom and performance validity.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The association of the dark tetrad with the ability to feign schizophrenia.

Akca,

Martins,

Brazzoni

et al. 2023

“…The addition of the IOP-M increased the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 in expMAL studies across culturally diverse populations (De Francisco Carvalho et al, 2021;Gegner et al, 2022;Giromini, Barbosa, et al, 2020;Šömen et al, 2021). This recognition-based PVT also accurately classified invalid performance against free-standing PVTs in English-speaking realworld clinical participants, yielding optimal combinations of classification parameters at the liberal cutoff of ≤30 (L. Erdodi et al, 2023;Holcomb et al, 2022). Moreover, there is evidence accumulating from experimental (Giromini, Barbosa, et al, 2020;Grønnerød et al, 2023) and criterion-groups studies (L. Erdodi et al, 2023) supporting the robustness of the IOP-29-M to demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; Viglione et al, 2017) and its subsequent memory module, the IOP-M , offer a rare symptom validity test and PVT combination that is gathering empirical support across both English-speaking (L. Erdodi et al, 2023;Gegner et al, 2022;Holcomb et al, 2022;Winters et al, 2021) and culturally diverse populations (Banovic et al, 2022;De Francisco Carvalho et al, 2021;Giromini, Barbosa, et al, 2020;Giromini et al, 2018;Grønnerød et al, 2023;Ilgunaite et al, 2021;Šömen et al, 2021). The IOP-29 False Disorder Probability Scale (FDS) was proven to accurately detect a wide range of simulated disorders in experimental malingering (expMAL) studies (e.g., depression- Grønnerød et al, 2023;Ilgunaite et al, 2021;posttraumatic stress disorder-Blavier et al, 2023;de Francisco Carvalho et al, 2021;traumatic brain injury-Gegner et al, 2022;Giromini, Barbosa, et al, 2020;schizophrenia-Banovic et al, 2022;Winters et al, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

English versus native language administration of the IOP-29-M produces similar results in a sample of Romanian bilinguals: A brief report.

Crişan¹

2023

Objective: The present study investigated classification accuracies of the IOP-29-M as a validity measure in a Romanian sample and examined differences between language versions. Method: Ninety-five undergraduates (65 controls and 30 experimental malingerers were administered the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29) and the IOP-M, in English and Romanian, as part of a neurocognitive test battery. IOP-29 False Disorder Score and IOP-M accuracy scores in English and Romanian were compared, and classification accuracies against the experimental malingering criterion were computed. Results: Both indicators differentiated between groups and produced excellent area under the curves (.86–.96) in classifying experimental malingerers. At previously published cutoffs, the Romanian version of the IOP-29 proved more accurate than the English version. The IOP-M yielded virtually identical accuracies for both versions at a standard cutoff of ≤30. Conclusions: The IOP-29-M accurately discriminates valid from invalid protocols in Romanian bilingual undergraduates. The administration language could influence cutoff accuracies of the IOP-29. The IOP-M appears robust to language effects.

“…The following two articles contribute to the investigation of the cross-cultural applicability of three relatively new validity checks. Specifically, Crișan (2023) administered the original (English) and Romanian versions of the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29; Viglione & Giromini, 2020; Viglione et al, 2017; for a review, see Giromini & Viglione, 2022; for a meta-analysis, see Puente-López et al, 2023) and Inventory of Problems–Memory (IOP-M; Erdodi et al, 2023; Giromini et al, 2020; M. Holcomb et al, 2023) module to a sample of Romanian bilingual students who were instructed to either answer honestly or feign mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the credibility of clinical presentations using performance and symptom validity tests: Current trends and future directions—Part II.

Giromini,

Erdodi

2023

This editorial article introduces the second special issue of Psychology & Neuroscience devoted to performance and symptom validity testing. The reason for including the second special issue is that we received an unusually large number of high-quality submissions that could not fit into a single volume. The articles included in this second part offer practical, immediately actionable knowledge to assessors while simultaneously advancing the methodology for calibrating instruments designed to evaluate the credibility of a given clinical presentation. In this introduction, we briefly summarize each article and reflect on an emerging epistemological question about the interpretation of noncredible results in the context of a clinical research study: If a relatively large proportion of clinical patients fail a validity test without any apparent external incentives to appear impaired, should this be interpreted as a possible vulnerability of that validity test to false-positive classifications or as evidence that noncredible responding is relatively common outside of medicolegal/forensic assessments? The methodological implications of symptom and performance validity research are discussed.