Development and Validation of the False Disorder Score: The Focal Scale of the Inventory of Problems

Abstract

This article introduces the Inventory of Problems (IOP)-a new, computerized, 181-item tool designed to discriminate bona-fide from feigned mental illness and cognitive impairment-and presents the development and validation of its focal, feigning scale, the False Disorder Score (IOP-FDS). The initial sample included (a) 211 patients and 64 offenders who took the IOP under standard conditions and (b) 210 community volunteers and 64 offenders who feigned mental illness. We split this sample into three subsamples. The first (n = 301) was used to select the variables to generate the IOP-FDS; the second (n = 148) scaled the IOP-FDS into a probability score; and the third (n = 100) tested its validity with an independent dataset. In this third subsample, the IOP-FDS had sensitivity = .90, specificity = .80, and a greater AUC (= .95) than the IOP-29 (= .91). For 40 participants, the PAI was available too. Within this subgroup, the IOP-FDS outperformed the selected PAI validity scales (AUC = .99 vs. AUC ≤ .85).

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

“…Prior to our investigation, indeed, tests evaluating response styles and the credibility of presented symptoms had yet to prove their validity and reliability in the context of remote testing. Research on the MMPI instruments, for instance, have only focused, so far, on the equivalence between in-person via paper-and-pencil versus in-person via computer administration formats, and studies addressing a similar research question with other SVTs (e.g., Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, SIRS-2; Rogers et al, 2010;Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, M-FAST;Miller, 2001;Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, SIMS;Smith & Burger, 1997;Widows & Smith, 2005; Table 3 Validity of the IOP-29 in detecting feigned schizophrenia: comparison between in-person and online administrations a These data refer to Wood's (2008) psychotic subsample described in Study 3 of Viglione et al's (2017) article b These data refer to the psychotic subsample described in Giromini et al's (2018) article c These data refer to the schizophrenia-related subsample of Giromini et al's (2020b) article: this study used a within-subject design, in which participants were asked to take the IOP-29 three times, one time answering honestly, one time faking mental illness, and one time responding with a random-like approach d These data refer to the schizophrenic subsample described in Giromini et al's (2020d) article e These data refer to the schizophrenia-related subsample of Winters et al's (2020) article: this study used a within-subject design, in which participants were asked to take the IOP-29 three times, one time answering honestly, one time faking schizophrenia, and one time responding with a random-like approach In-person administration Online administration Self-Report Symptom Inventory, SRSI; Merten et al, 2016) have yet to be published. With all due caution, our investigation thus provides some initial evidence that the validity of a self-report SVT like the IOP-29 may be expected to be preserved, when switching from a in person to an online/ remote format.…”

“…Its research profile is accumulating, a hallmark for use in legal settings" (Young et al, 2020, p. 9). Although the IOP-29 was published only relatively recently in 2017 (Viglione et al, 2017), all 12 published studies since then support its validity and effectiveness (Gegner et al, 2021;Giromini et al, 2018Giromini et al, , 2020aIlgunaite et al, 2020;Roma et al, 2020;Viglione et al, 2017Viglione et al, , 2019Winters et al, 2020). Specifically, the results of these studies suggest that (a) the validity and classification accuracy of the IOP-29 compares favorably to that of popular measures like the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997) (Giromini et al, 2018) or Rey Fifteen-Item Test (FIT; Lezak, 1995;Rey, 1941) (Gegner et al, 2021); (b) the IOP-29 is similarly valid when addressing feigning of different conditions such as depression, neuropsychological impairment, psychosis and/or PTSD (e.g., Giromini et al, 2020b;Ilgunaite et al, 2020;Winters et al, 2020); (c) the validity of the IOP-29 is maintained both when adopting a simulation/analogue (e.g., Gegner et al, 2021) and when relying on a known-groups comparison (Roma et al, 2020) research paradigm; (d) the IOP-29 yields incremental validity when used in combination with other SVTs (Giromini et al, 2019) or PVTs (Giromini et al, 2020a); (e) the IOP-29 preserves its effectiveness also when used outside the USA, in countries such as Australia (Gegner et al, 2021), the UK (Winters et al, 2020), Italy (Giromini et al, 2018), Portugal (Giromini et al, 2020a), or Lithuania (Ilgunaite et al, 2020).…”

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

“…As such, additional refinements to this scale are recommended. Future research, in particular, might attempt to investigate reaction times, given that random responding might likely associate with infrequent and/or inconsistent reaction time patterns (Viglione et al, 2018). Additionally, future research could also focus on patterns of endorsement typical of random responders.…”

Flipping the Script: Measuring Both Performance Validity and Cognitive Ability with the Forced Choice Recognition Trial of the RCFT

“…As a novel EVI, the RCFT FCR has had limited empirical support. To date, it has only been examined among cognitively intact students within an experimental malingering paradigm, and this has limited the generalizability of the findings to clinical populations Lindstrom et al, 2011;Sullivan & King, 2010;Viglione et al, 2019). In fact, emphasized the importance of testing their newly introduced instrument in a clinical sample, and they ended their paper with a call for replication among patients with confirmed or suspected genuine memory deficits.…”

“…As a novel EVI, the RCFT FCR has had limited empirical support. To date, it has only been examined among cognitively intact students within an experimental malingering paradigm, and this has limited the generalizability of the findings to clinical populations ( Giromini et al., 2019 ; Lindstrom et al., 2011 ; Sullivan & King, 2010 ; Viglione et al., 2019 ). In fact, Rai et al.…”