A Clinical Comparison, Simulation Study Testing the Validity of SIMS and IOP-29 with an Italian Sample
The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29) was recently introduced as a brief, easy-to-use measure of non-credible mental and cognitive symptoms that may be applied to a wide variety of contexts or clinical conditions. The current study compared its validity in discriminating bona fide versus feigned (via experimental malingering paradigm) psychopathology against that of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Specifically, 452 Italian adult volunteers participated in this study: 216 were individuals with mental illness who were asked to take the SIMS and IOP-29 honestly, and 236 were nonclinical participants (experimental simulators) who took the same two tests with the instruction to feign a psychopathological condition. Two main, broad categories of symptom presentations were investigated: (a) psychotic spectrum disorders and (b) anxiety, depression, and/or trauma-related disorders. Data analysis compared the effect sizes of the differences between the patients and experimental simulators, as well as the AUC and classification accuracy statistics for both the SIMS and IOP-29. The results indicate that the IOP-29 outperformed the SIMS, with the differences between the two tools being more notable within the psychotic (IOP-29 vs. SIMS: d = − 1.80 vs. d = − 1.06; AUC = .89 vs. AUC = .79) than within the anxiety, depression, and/or trauma related subgroup (IOP-29 vs. SIMS: d = − 2.02 vs. d = − 1.62; AUC = .90 vs. AUC = .86). This study also demonstrates that the IOP-29, with its single cutoff score, is generalizable culturally and linguistically from the USA (English) to Italy (Italian).
KeywordsInventory of Problems SIMS Malingering Psychosis Anxiety Depression
We thank Drs. Giuseppe Maina, Karla Martino, Vincenzo Villari, Daniele Zizolfi, and Salvatore Zizolfi for their help in recruiting the clinical sample. We also thank Carlotta Brega, Giulia Carnino, Sonia Di Pietro, Celeste Gualinetti, Silvia Longo, Simone Manso, Sara Marchini, Edoardo Pepe, Silvia Pitirra, and Leonardo Stefanelli for their help in the data collection.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
When this study was designed and realized, none of the authors had any conflict of interest. However, Luciano Giromini and Donald J. Viglione are currently in the process of creating a Limited Liability Company for the commercial use of the IOP-29. Conversely, Claudia Pignolo and Alessandro Zennaro continue to have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Abramsky, A. B. (2005). Assessment of test behaviors as a unique construct in the evaluation of malingered depression on the Inventory of Problems: do test behaviors add significant variance beyond problem endorsement strategies? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., Reynolds, C. R., 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Clegg, C., Fremouw, W., & Mogge, N. (2009). Utility of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) and the Assessment of Depression Inventory (ADI) in screening for malingering among outpatients seeking to claim disability. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(2), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Erdodi, L. A. (2017). Aggregating validity indicators: the salience of domain specificity and the indeterminate range in multivariate models of performance validity assessment. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult [Epub ahead of print, Nov 7]. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1384925.
- Geisinger, K. F. (2003). Testing and assessment in cross-cultural psychology. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Part one (pp. 95–117). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
- Green, R. L. (1991). MMPI-2/MMPI: an interpretative manual. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- La Marca, S., Rigoni, D., Sartori, G., & Lo Priore, C. (2012). Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): manuale (2nd ed.). Firenze, IT: Giunti O.S.Google Scholar
- McCullaugh, J. M. (2011). The convergent and ecological validity of the Inventory of Problems with a community-supervised, forensic sample (unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- O’Brien, S. M. (2004). An investigation into the incremental value of test dependent malingering of schizophrenia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R. (2008). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 14–35). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In I. B. Weiner, J. R. Graham, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: assessment psychology (Vol. 10, 2nd ed., pp. 517–540). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R., & Gillard, N. D. (2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In B. Rosenfeld & S. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174–188). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Smith, G. P., & Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Journal of the American Academy on Psychiatry and Law, 25, 180–183.Google Scholar
- Streiner, D. L. (2010). Diagnosing tests: using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(3), 209–219.Google Scholar
- Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
- Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Wisdom, N. M., Callahan, J. L., & Shaw, T. G. (2010). Diagnostic utility of the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology to detect malingering in a forensic sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(2), 118–125.Google Scholar