An Inventory of Problems–29 Study on Random Responding Using Experimental Feigners, Honest Controls, and Computer-Generated Data

Abstract

Self-reports may be affected by two primary sources of distortion, i.e., content-related (CRD) and content-unrelated (CUD) distortions. CRD and CUD, however, may co-vary, and similar detection strategies have been used to capture both. Thus, we hypothesized that a scale developed to detect random responding-arguably, one the most evident examples of CUDwould likely be sensitive to both CUD and, albeit to a lesser extent, CRD. Study 1 (N = 1,901) empirically tested this hypothesis by developing a random responding scale (RRS) for the recently introduced, Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; Viglione et al., 2017), and by testing it with both experimental feigners and honest controls. Results supported our hypothesis and offered some insight on how to pull apart CRD-from CUD-related variance. Study 2 (N = 700) then evaluated whether our RRS would perform similarly well with data from human participants instructed to respond at random versus computer-generated, random data. Interestingly, the sensitivity of our RRS dropped dramatically when considering the data from human participants. Together with the results of additional analyses inspecting the patterns of responses provided by our human random responders, these findings thus posed a major question, is humans' random responding really random?

Validity of the Norwegian Version of Inventory of Problems–29 (IoP-29): A simulation study with experimental feigning of depression and a nonclinical control group.

“…A comparison with TOMM based on 100 adult volunteers showed excellent values for sensitivity and specificity, but even higher values were obtained by combining the two measures (Giromini, Barbosa, et al, 2019). The IoP-29 has proven its usefulness in separating honest from random responders (Giromini et al, 2020a(Giromini et al, , 2020bWinters et al, 2021), and honest responders from those simulating depression, PTSD, and/or schizophrenia (Giromini et al, 2020a(Giromini et al, , 2020bPignolo et al, 2021;Šömen et al, 2021). A study of 154 possibly traumatized firefighters showed that IoP-29 FDS scores based on honest responding were almost consistently below cutoff, despite high variation in symptom presentation (Carvalho et al, 2021).…”

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

“… a Specifically computed to convert traditional scores into a binomial experiment; 1–3, Acquisition trials; Animals, Category fluency (Curtis et al., 2008; Hurtubise et al., 2020; Sugarman & Axelrod, 2015); BC, Below chance level (below the 95% confidence interval around the mean); BIN, Cutoff based on the binomial distribution; BNT‐15, Boston Naming Test—Short Form (Abeare et al., 2022; Deloria et al., 2021; Erdodi, Dunn, et al., 2018); C, At chance level (within the 95% confidence interval around the mean); CD WAIS‐IV , Coding (Ashendorf et al., 2017; Erdodi, Abeare, et al., 2017); CIM, Complex Ideational Material (Erdodi, 2019; Erdodi et al., 2016; Erdodi & Roth, 2017); COL, Color Naming; CPT‐3, Conners' Continuous Performance Test—Third Edition ( T = 90 is the highest score possible; Ord et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2022); COM, Combination score (FR + true positives—false positives); DCT, Dot Counting Test (Boone et al., 2002; Hansen et al., 2022); Dem ADJ , Demographically adjusted score; DH, Dominant hand; D‐KEFS, Delis Kaplan Executive System (Cutler et al., 2022; Eglit et al., 2020; Erdodi, Sagar, et al., 2018); DR, Delayed recall; DS WAIS‐IV , Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (Shura et al., 2020; Whitney et al., 2009); EMP, Empirically derived cutoffs; EWFT, Emotion Word Fluency Test (Abeare, Hurtubise, et al., 2021); FAS, Letter fluency (Curtis et al., 2008; Deloria et al., 2021; Hurtubise et al., 2020); FCR, Forced choice recognition; FR, Free recall; FTT, Finger Tapping Test (Arnold et al., 2005; Axelrod et al., 2014; Erdodi, Taylor, et al., 2019); GPB, Grooved Pegboard Test (Erdodi, Kirsch, et al., 2018; Erdodi, Seke, et al., 2017; Link et al., 2021); HVLT‐R, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test—Revised (Cutler et al., 2021; Sawyer et al., 2017); IOP‐M, Inventory of Problems—29 memory module (Giromini et al., 2020a, 2020b; Holcomb, Pyne, et al., 2022); IR, DR & CNS, Immediate, Delayed & Consistency of Recognition trials (% correct); LM Recognition, Yes/No recognition trial of the Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition (Bortnik et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 2021); LNS WAIS‐IV , Letter‐Number Sequencing (Erdodi &amp...…”

Comparability and Validity of the Online and In-Person Administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29

“…Thus, one might question whether our findings generalize to reallife evaluation contexts which use these precautions. On the other hand, inattentive item review or inconsistent effort would likely obscure discrimination of feigners from honest responders (Giromini et al, 2020c). Indeed, we had no control over the participants, so feigners might have searched the internet for the answers or asked family members and friends how to respond to the items, etc.…”