The Self-Report Symptom Inventory

Merten, Thomas; Dandachi-FitzGerald, Brechje; Bošković, Irena; Puente-López, Esteban

doi:10.1007/s12207-021-09434-w

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current guidelines recommend administering both performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) to assess the credibility of presented psychological problems (Merten et al, 2021(Merten et al, , 2022Sherman et al, 2020;Sweet et al, 2021). The main purpose of PVTs is to assess excessively poor performance on cognitive tests (underperforming on cognitive tasks), which is often done with the Reliable Digit Span of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (e.g., Babikian et al, 2006), the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996), and/or other similar tools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…Based on an aggregated data set, Merten et al (2016Merten et al ( , 2022 recommended two different cutoff values to detect symptom exaggeration, depending on the circumstances. For screening purposes, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

Section: Public Significance Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With these limitations in mind, Merten et al (2016Merten et al ( , 2022 developed the 107-item Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI). Basically, the SRSI consists of a mix of pseudosymptoms and genuine symptoms, which makes its measurement intention less obvious.…”

Section: Public Significance Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Making psychological tests available in multiple languages is important to ensure that psychologists in various countries have access to accurate tools for their psychological assessment. Moreover, as the numbers of expats and immigrants continue to rise, forensic and clinical experts are increasingly faced with clients who have different cultural and language backgrounds (e.g., Franzen et al, 2022; Merten et al, in press; Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012, 2017). To accurately assess these clients, it is crucial to use carefully translated measures, including symptom validity tests such as the SRSI.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting symptom exaggeration in compensation-seeking individuals, psychotherapy clients, and individuals referred for job assessments: Psychometric features of the French and Dutch versions of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory.

Dandachi-FitzGerald¹,

Page²

2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a relatively new instrument to detect symptom exaggeration. It contains a mix of plausible and pseudosymptoms, the rationale being that people who intend to exaggerate symptoms will overendorse both types of symptoms, whereas individuals responding truthfully will selectively endorse primarily plausible symptoms. The present study examined whether there are any differences in Dutch and French versions of the SRSI as a first step in determining their psychometric equivalence. Method: Relying on a differential prevalence design, we compared the Dutch and French SRSI in a mixed sample of compensation-seeking individuals (n = 226), psychotherapy clients (n = 95), and job selection candidates (n = 130). Participants were tested at the same bilingual facility and either had a Dutch language background (n = 263) or a French language background (n = 188). Results: Internal reliability estimates of SRSI subscales were highly comparable across the two language groups. Both language groups exhibited a pattern in which compensation-seeking individuals reported the highest level of pseudosymptoms, psychotherapy clients an intermediate level, and the job selection subgroup the lowest level. There was no difference in this regard between the two language backgrounds. Conclusions: Given the increasing diversity in the cultural backgrounds of clients, it is important for experts to have different language versions of the same instrument in their toolbox that possess a comparable quality. Our data show that the Dutch and French SRSI possess similar psychometric and conceptual features.

show abstract

“…Also noteworthy, there were no order effects. Along similar lines, Dandachi-FitzGerald et al (2023) administered the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI; Merten et al, 2016; for a review, see Merten et al, 2022) in either Dutch or French to a relatively large sample consisting of compensation-seeking individuals, psychotherapy clients, and job applicants. Consistent with the hypothesis that the Dutch and French versions of the SRSI are equivalent, the mean scores and failure rates were strikingly similar in both languages.…”

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

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Self-Report Symptom Inventory

Cited by 13 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Detecting symptom exaggeration in compensation-seeking individuals, psychotherapy clients, and individuals referred for job assessments: Psychometric features of the French and Dutch versions of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About