Self-report Measures for Symptom Validity Assessment in Whiplash-associated Disorders

Abstract

Background/Objective: Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) are one of the most complex conditions to evaluate because several of its symptoms are not observable with current diagnostic methods and cannot be quantified or evaluated correctly. No method is currently available to assess the risk of malingering in the aforementioned condition efficiently. Our aim is to study the capacity of several biopsychosocial psychometric self-report instruments, such as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Cervical Disability Index (NDI), the SF-36 Health Questionnaire, the Beck Anxiety and Depression Inventories (BDI-II and BAI), or the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), to discriminate between patients diagnosed with WAD following a vehicle accident and non-clinical participants with malingering instructions. Method: A simulation design was used with 630 participants: 200 non-clinical controls with honest responding condition, 201 instructed malingerers, and 229 WAD clinical outpatients. Results: Our results showed an AUC range of .60 to .90, with the highest value being that of the BPI (.90), followed by the NDI (.88), and the lowest value that of the BIPQ (.60), followed by the BAI (.71). Conclusions: Overall, the BPI, the NDI, and SF-36 can correctly discriminate between groups with a good specificity (> 90%), while the BAI, BDI, and BIPQ showed a lower capacity, with a high rate of false positives in the case of the BDI and of false negatives in the other two. Practical and research implications are discussed. Medidas de autoinforme para la evaluación de la validez de los síntomas del síndrome del latigazo cervical R E S U M E NAntecedentes/Objetivo: El Síndrome del Latigazo Cervical (WAD) es una de las condiciones más complejas de evaluar debido a que varios de los síntomas que presenta no son objetivables con los métodos diagnósticos actuales y no puede cuantificarse ni evaluarse correctamente. En la actualidad no se dispone de ningún método eficiente para valorar el riesgo de simulación en la citada condición. Nuestro objetivo es estudiar la capacidad de varios instrumentos psicométricos biopsicosociales de autoinforme,

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

“…In contrast, administering multiple independent SVTs for a given assessment is more difficult and problematic (Giromini et al, 2022). Compared to the large and growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated SVTs available to professionals (Pina et al, 2022; Sherman et al, 2020; Sweet et al, 2021). The most widely used and probably most empirically sound negative response bias indices are the validity scales of the MMPI instruments (Burchett & Bagby, 2022; Giromini et al, 2022).…”

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) in Veterans.

“…(p. 31) They also call for SVTs to have demonstrated discriminability with the clinical condition and have established, validated cutoff scores. Cutoff scores may vary by population, setting (e.g., inpatient), the gold-standard criterion used for comparison, or purpose (e.g., forensic), necessitating research across contexts and replication of results (Pina et al, 2022). The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST;Miller, 2001) is a brief, stand-alone SVT that could be used as an adjunct validity screen in cases where self-report is assessed, but the situation does not allow for inclusion of lengthier measures that include SVTs; it may also be used as an adjunct SVT in a battery of tests.…”