This study was designed to replicate previous research on embedded validity indicators (EVIs) in the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised (HVLT-R) and introduce a new forced choice recognition tr...

Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised.

A growing literature indicates that to evaluate the credibility of a clinical presentation it would be optimal to rely on multiple sources of information, and use both symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) whenever possible In this paper, we present the development and initial validation of a PVT module designed to be used in combination with a free-standing SVT Named Inventory of Problems – Memory (IOP-M), this new PVT module is given to the examinee immediately after completing the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) It consists of a 34-item, two-alternative, forced-choice, implicit recognition test Results from 360 nonclinical volunteers – 192 instructed to respond honestly (honest controls) and 168 instructed to feign mental illness (experimental simulators) – suggest that the IOP-M has the potential to yield incremental validity over using the IOP-29 alone In fact, a series of hierarchical logistic regressions using group as criterion variable (0 = honest control; 1 = experimental simulator) and the IOP-29 and IOP-M as predictors showed that the models including both measures significantly improved classification accuracy over those including the IOP-29 only, Δχ2 ≥ 191, p < 01 When considering the optimal cut scores for each measure, only 6 of the 168 simulators (ie, less than 4%) passed both the IOP-29 and IOP-M, and only 3 of the 192 honest responders (ie, less than 2%) failed both A closer examination of false positive classifications, however, revealed that the IOP-M could be prone to false positive errors in examinees with moderate to severe cognitive impairment

SVT Meets PVT: Development and Initial Validation of the Inventory of Problems – Memory (IOP-M)

To date, the MMPI-based, rare-symptom detection strategy is considered one of the most effective ones in symptom validity assessment. Because many of the items of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) were designed specifically to provide incremental validity over the MMPI F scales, this study tested whether using the IOP-29 in combination with the MMPI-2 would provide higher classification accuracy compared to using either instrument alone. A total of 155 Italian adult individuals contributed to this study. About half (n = 93) were experimental malingerers (expMAL) instructed to simulate depression without being detected as feigners. The others were either (a) depressed patients in treatment (n = 36) or (b) individuals evaluated for possible malingering associated with work-related stress and considered to be genuinely affected by depression (n = 26). All were administered the Italian versions of both the MMPI-2 and the IOP-29. As expected, both instruments were highly effective in discriminating feigned from bona fide depression, with AUC values ranging from .77 to .90. More importantly, when entering the IOP-29 after each of the MMPI-2 scales under consideration (i.e., F, Fb, and Fp), the logistic regression models predicting group membership (0 = patient; 1 = expMAL) improved significantly. Likewise, each of the three MMPI-2 scales under consideration also significantly improved the prediction of group membership, when entered after the IOP-29. These findings thus indicate that using the MMPI-2 together with the IOP-29 could provide incremental validity over using either instrument alone, when testing depression-related complaints.

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)

We investigated the classification accuracy of the Inventory of Problems − 29 (IOP-29), its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) and the Fifteen Item Test (FIT) in an Australian community sample (...

An Australian study on feigned mTBI using the Inventory of Problems - 29 (IOP-29), its Memory Module (IOP-M), and the Rey Fifteen Item Test (FIT).

In the context of legal damage evaluations, evaluees may exaggerate or simulate symptoms in an attempt to obtain greater economic compensation. To date, practitioners and researchers have focused on detecting malingering behavior as an exclusively unitary construct. However, we argue that there are two types of inconsistent behavior that speak to possible malingering-accentuating (i.e., exaggerating symptoms that are actually experienced) and simulating (i.e., fabricating symptoms entirely)-each with its own unique attributes; thus, it is necessary to distinguish between them. The aim of the present study was to identify objective indicators to differentiate symptom accentuators from symptom producers and consistent participants. We analyzed the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology scales and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form validity scales of 132 individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood who had undergone assessment for psychiatric/psychological damage. The results indicated that the SIMS Total Score, Neurologic Impairment and Low Intelligence scales and the MMPI-2-RF Infrequent Responses (F-r) and Response Bias (RBS) scales successfully discriminated among symptom accentuators, symptom producers, and consistent participants. Machine learning analysis was used to identify the most efficient parameter for classifying these three groups, recognizing the SIMS Total Score as the best indicator.

/pdf/indicators-to-distinguish-symptom-accentuators-from-symptom-9yc6rujihi.pdf

Indicators to distinguish symptom accentuators from symptom producers in individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder: A pilot study on inconsistency subtypes using SIMS and MMPI-2-RF.

This study tested whether combining the Inventory of Problems - 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) would increase sensitivity in the detection of experimentally feigned mental health problems, compared to using either test alone. Additionally, it also evaluated (a) the effects of administration order of these two tests and (b) the cultural and linguistic applicability of these tests to a European Portuguese population. The IOP-29 and TOMM were administered to a community sample of 100 nonclinical, adult volunteers from Portugal, with the instruction to feign mental health problems. Half were instructed to feign mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) symptoms, half were instructed to feign major depression. Administration order had no effects on the tests' scores, and both measures produced excellent sensitivity values, ranging from .82 to .98 for the TOMM, and from .88 to 1.00 for the IOP-29, when using standard a priori cutoff scores. More importantly, combining the results of TOMM with those of IOP-29 notably increased sensitivity compared to using either test alone. This study thus supports the use of the IOP-29 together with the TOMM in multimethod symptom validity assessments and provides initial evidence that both tests can be used also in Portugal.

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Giulia Coga

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners