Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 102–111 | Cite as

The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI): a New Instrument for the Assessment of Distorted Symptom Endorsement

  • Thomas Merten
  • Harald Merckelbach
  • Peter Giger
  • Andreas Stevens
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Self-report instruments to detect distorted symptom reporting play a crucial role in clinical and forensic psychology. Most of the instruments currently available for this purpose only list implausible symptoms, which makes them easily identifiable as symptom validity tests. We developed the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI), combining five self-report scales of genuine symptoms with five pseudosymptom scales to screen for distorted symptom reporting in various domains (e.g., depression, post-traumatic stress). With a preliminary questionnaire version, we collected data in a heterogeneous sample (N = 239) and performed an item selection, resulting in the final 107-item version. This version was evaluated in civil forensic patients, inmates of a prison, and a population-based sample; N = 387). Data show that (a) SRSI pseudosymptom scores correlate highly (≥.80) with other instruments tapping distorted symptom endorsement, notably the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology; (b) High SRSI pseudosymptom scores tend to correlate with underperformance; and (c) The psychometric features of the SRSI are satisfactory, with internal consistency for the total scales >.90 and retest reliability >.85. The instrument appears to be a promising tool for examining symptom exaggeration, but further work is required, in particular cross-validation with other samples and different methods.

Keywords

Psychological assessment Questionnaire Symptom validity testing Malingering Symptom overreporting Forensic assessment Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks of the authors are due to Dr. Eva Friedel, who participated in the original conception of the instrument and the early phase of rational item construction. Furthermore, we acknowledge the contributions of Christina Fuchs (nee Diederich), Robert Lorenz, Sam Schlatow, Dr. Elisabeth Vossler-Thies, Lena Delattre, Maren Zon Rafdal, Benno Huhnt, and David Schlicht for their assistance in the data collection phase.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Prof. Stevens and Dr. Merten are regularly doing independent examinations in the fields of civil and social law. Prof. Merckelbach, Prof. Stevens, and Dr. Merten have participated in the development and adaptation of several validity tests.

Supplementary material

12207_2016_9257_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (73 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 73.1 kb)

References

  1. Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). An MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale, F (p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424–431. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardolf, B. R., Denney, R. L., & Houston, C. M. (2007). Base rates of negative response bias and malingered neurocognitive dysfunction among criminal defendants referred for neuropsychological evaluation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 899–916. doi: 10.1080/13825580600966391 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolinger, E., Reese, C., Suhr, J., & Larrabee, G. J. (2014). Susceptibility of the MMPI-2-RF Neurological Complaints and Cognitive Complaints scales to over-reporting in simulated head injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29, 7–15. doi: 10.1093/arclin/act082 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boone, K. B. (2013). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology: An evidence based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, S. S., Heilbronner, R. L., & Ruff, R. M. (2014). Psychological assessment of symptom and performance validity, response bias, and malingering: Official position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 197–205. doi: 10.1007/s12207-014-9198-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., . . . Silver, C. H. (National Academy of Neuropsychology Policy & Planning Committee). (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity. Official position of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 419–426. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002
  7. Carone, D. A., Bush, S. S., & Iverson, G. L. (2013). Providing feedback on symptom validity, mental health, and treatment in mild traumatic brain injury. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild traumatic brain injury: Symptom validity assessment and malingering (pp. 101–118). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Chafetz, M. D., Abrahams, J. P., & Kohlmaier, J. (2007). Malingering on the Social Security Disability Consultative Exam: A new rating scale. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2006.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cima, M., Hollnack, S., Kremer, K., Knauer, E., Schellbach-Matties, R., Klein, B., & Merckelbach, H. (2003). “Strukturierter Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome”. Die deutsche Version des “Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology: SIMS” [The German version of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology]. Nervenarzt, 74, 977–986. doi: 10.1007/s00115-002-1438-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Merten, T., Ponds, R. W. H. M., & Niemann, H. (2015). Europäische Umfrage zum Einsatz von Beschwerdenvalidierungstests: Ergebnisse der deutschen Teilnehmer [European survey on symptom validity assessment practices and beliefs: Results of the German participants. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie, 26, 99–108. doi: 10.1024/1016-264X/a000135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. H. M., & Merten, T. (2013). Symptom validity and neuropsychological assessment: A survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 771–783. doi: 10.1093/arclin/act073 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Edens, J. F., Otto, R. K., & Dwyer, T. (1999). Utility of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology in identifying persons motivated to malinger psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 27, 387–396.Google Scholar
  13. Giger, P., & Merten, T. (2013). Swiss population-based reference data for six symptom validity tests. Clínica y Salud, 24, 153–159. doi: 10.5093/cl2013a16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Göbber, J., Petermann, F., Piegza, M., & Kobelt, A. (2012). Beschwerdenvalidierung bei Rehabilitanten mit Migrationshintergrund in der Psychosomatik [Symptom validity in patients with migration background in psychosomatic medicine]. Die Rehabilitation, 51, 356–364. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1323669 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Green, P. (2003). Green’s word memory test. User’s manual. Edmonton, Canada: Green’s Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129. doi: 10.1080/13854040903155063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Howe, L. L. S. (2012). Distinguishing genuine from malingered posttraumatic stress disorder in head injury litigation. In C. R. Reynolds & A. M. Horton (Eds.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (2nd ed., pp. 301–331). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huhnt, B. (2013). Stone cold manipulation or just an excuse? Psychopathy and blame attribution as possible explanations for faking symptoms in a forensic setting. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Maastricht University, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Jaffe, M. E., & Sharma, K. K. (1998). Malingering uncommon psychiatric symptoms among defendants charged under California’s Three Strikes and You’re Out law. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 549–555. doi: 10.1520/JFS16181J PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lareau, C. R. (2011). Posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. In D. Faust (Ed.), Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (6th ed., pp. 610–635). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 1–7. doi: 10.1017/S1355617712000240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malcore, S. A., Schutte, C., Van Dyke, S. A., & Axelrod, B. N. (2015). The development of a reduced-item Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 95–99. doi: 10.1007/s12207-015-9214-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey on North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29, 741–776. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1087597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Meade, A. W., & Craig, B. C. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. doi: 10.1037/a0028085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Merten, T., Friedel, E., & Stevens, A. (2007). Die Authentizität der Beschwerdenschilderung in der neurologisch-psychiatrischen Begutachtung: eine Untersuchung mit dem Strukturierten Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome [Authenticity of symptom report in independent neurological and psychiatric examinations: A study with the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology]. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 17, 140–154.Google Scholar
  26. Merten, T., & Merckelbach, H. (2013). Symptom validity testing in somatoform and dissociative disorders: A critical review. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 122–137. doi: 10.1007/s12207-013-9155-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merten, T., Thies, E., Schneider, K., & Stevens, A. (2009). Symptom validity testing in claimants with alleged posttraumatic stress disorder: Comparing the Morel Emotional Numbing Test, the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, and the Word Memory Test. Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 284–293. doi: 10.1007/s12207-009-9057-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, J. F., Faust, K. A., Faust, D., Baker, A. M., & Cook, N. E. (2013). Careless and random responding on clinical and research measures in the addictions: A concerning problem and investigation of their detection. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 292–306. doi: 10.1007/s11469-012-9410-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, H. A. (2001). Miller-Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  30. Morel, K. R. (2010). Manual for the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for posttraumatic stress disorder (2nd ed.). Author.Google Scholar
  31. Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  32. Nies, K. J., & Sweet, J. J. (1994). Neuropsychological assessment and malingering: A critical review of past and present strategies. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 501–552. doi: 10.1016/0887-6177(94)90041-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Rafdal, M. Z. (2013). Norwegians never lie. A pilot study of the psychometric qualities of the Norwegian List of Indiscriminate Psychopathology. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Maastricht University, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Rios, J., & Morey, L. C. (2013). Detecting feigned ADHD in later adolescence: An examination of three PAI–A negative distortion indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 594–599. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.821071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., Gillard, N. D., Wooley, C. N., & Ross, C. A. (2012). The detection of feigned disabilities: The effectiveness of the Personality Assessment Inventory in a traumatized inpatient sample. Assessment, 19, 77–88. doi: 10.1177/1073191111422031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10, 160–177. doi: 10.1177/1073191103010002007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-2 (SIRS-2) and professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  40. Santamaría Fernández, P. (2014). Utilidad diagnóstica del inventario estructurado de simulación de síntomas (SIMS) en población española [Diagnostic utility of the SIMS in the Spanish population.] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  41. Schlicht, D., & Merten, T. (2014). Das Bild vorgetäuschter Gesundheitsstörungen in der öffentlichen Meinung [The picture of malingered symptom presentation in public opinion]. Versicherungsmedizin, 66, 146–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmand, B., Lindeboom, J., Schagen, S., Heijt, R., Koene, T., & Hamburger, H. L. (1998). Cognitive complaints in patients after whiplash injury: The impact of malingering. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 64, 339–343. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.64.3.339 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Schroedter, J. H., Lechert, Y., & Lüttinger, P. (2006). Die Umsetzung der Bildungsskala ISCED-1997 für die Volkszählung 1970, die Mikrozensus-Zusatzerhebung 1971 und die Mikrozensen 1976–2004. ZUMA-Methodenbericht 2006/08 [The adaptation of the educational scale ISCED-1997 for the census of 1970, the microcensus of 1971, and the microcensuses 1976 to 2004]. Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.Google Scholar
  44. Schweizerisches Bundesamt für Statistik. (2011). Statistisches Jahrbuch der Schweiz 2011 [Swiss statistical yearbook 2011]. Zurich, Switzerland: Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, G. P. (2008). Brief screening measures for the detection of feigned psychopathology. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 323–342). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1997). International standard classification of education or ISCED-1997. http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/isced/ISCED_A.%20pdf. Download January 6, 2008.
  47. van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Merten, T. (2014). The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28, 1336–1365. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2014.984763 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., Gabel, J., & Munizza, J. (2007). An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: A known-groups comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 249–260. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9062-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vossler-Thies, E., Stevens, A., Engel, R. R., & Licha, C. (2013). Erfassung negative Antwortverzerrungen mit der deutschen Fassung des “Personality Assessment Inventory”, dem “Verhaltens- und Erlebensinventar” [Capturing negative response distortion with the German version of the Personality Assessment Inventory]. Diagnostica, 59, 73–85. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS—Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  51. Wiggins, C. W., Wygant, D. B., Hoelzle, J. B., & Gervais, R. O. (2012). The more you say the less it means: Overreporting and attenuated criterion validity in a forensic disability sample. Psychological Injury and Law, 5, 162–173. doi: 10.1007/s12207-012-9137-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Young, G. (2014). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury: Implications for practice and court. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zimmermann, P., Kowalski, J. T., Alliger-Horn, C., Danker-Hopfe, H., Engers, A., Meermann, R., & Hellweg, R. (2013). Detection of malingering in the assessment of occupational disability in the military. German Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 54–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Merten
    • 1
  • Harald Merckelbach
    • 2
  • Peter Giger
    • 3
  • Andreas Stevens
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyVivantes Klinikum im FriedrichshainBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Forensic Psychology Section, Faculty of Psychology and NeuroscienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Federal Department of DefenceCivil Protection and SportsBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Medizinisches BegutachtungsinstitutTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations