A Clinical Comparison, Simulation Study Testing the Validity of SIMS and IOP-29 with an Italian Sample

  • Luciano Giromini
  • Donald J. Viglione
  • Claudia Pignolo
  • Alessandro Zennaro
Article

Abstract

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).

Keywords

Inventory of Problems SIMS Malingering Psychosis Anxiety Depression 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. Green, R. L. (1991). MMPI-2/MMPI: an interpretative manual. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Hawes, S., & Bocaccini, M. (2009). Detection of overreporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment Inventory: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 21, 112–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Larrabee, G. J. (2003). Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 54–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Meehl, P., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merten, T., Merkelbach, H., Giger, P., & Stevens, A. (2016). The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI): a new instrument for the assessment of distorted symptom endorsement. Psychological Injury and Law, 9, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  22. Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Streiner, D. L. (2010). Diagnosing tests: using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(3), 209–219.Google Scholar
  30. Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  31. Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Viglione, D., Giromini, L., Gustafson, M. L., & Meyer, G. J. (2014). Developing continuous variable composites for Rorschach measures of thought problems, vigilance, and suicide risk. Assessment, 21, 42–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L., & Landis, P. (2017). The development of the Inventory of Problems–29: a brief self-administered measure for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 534–544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Viglione, D. J., Wright, D., Dizon, N. T., Moynihan, J. E., DuPuis, S., & Pizitz, T. D. (2001). Evading detection on the MMPI–2: does caution produce more realistic patterns of responding? Assessment, 8, 237–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Young, G. (2015). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: prevalence 15±15%. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(3), 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.California School of Professional PsychologyAlliant International University - San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations