The Self-Report Symptom Inventory

Validity assessment of early retirement claimants: Symptom overreporting on the Beck Depression Inventory - II

OBJECTIVES

The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is a commonly used clinical measure; however, it contains no method to assess validity of self-report. The primary objective of this research was to examine the possibility of cut scores on the BDI-II indicating possible invalid symptom report in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Secondary objectives were to explore the utility of education specific cut scores and the effects of the criterion for invalid symptom report.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventeen early retirement claimants (age range 19-64 years) presenting for forensic neuropsychological examination were considered for this study. Invalid symptom report was determined based on two independent self-report symptom validity tests. Further, all individuals completed the BDI-II as part of their routine assessment battery.

RESULTS

Individuals with invalid symptom report (30.9%) showed significantly higher BDI-II scores compared to individuals passing symptom validity assessment. ROC analysis supports the utility of the BDI-II to differentiate valid from invalid symptom report, AUC = 0.822, SE = 0.032, p < .001, 95%-CI = 0.760-0.884. A BDI-II cut score of 38 points reached a desired level of 0.90 specificity with 0.58 sensitivity. Secondary analysis indicated that the recommended cut score may vary depending on the educational level of the examinee. Further, results seem to be largely robust against the chosen criterion for invalid symptom report.

CONCLUSION

The BDI-II appears to be a useful adjunct embedded validity indicator in forensic neuropsychological evaluations.

The English-language version of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory: a pilot analogue study with feigned head injury sequelae

Questionnaire-based symptom validity tests (SVTs) are an indispensable diagnostic tool for evaluating the credibility of patients' claimed symptomatology, both in forensic and in clinical assessment contexts. In 2019, the comprehensive professional manual of a new SVT, the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI), was published in German. Its English-language version was first tested in the UK. This experimental analogue study investigated 20 adults simulating minor head injury symptoms and 21 honestly responding participants. The effect sizes of differences between the two groups were large, with the simulating group endorsing a higher number of pseudosymptoms, both on the SRSI and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, and scoring lower on the Reliable Digit Span than the control group. The results are similar to those obtained in previous research of different SRSI language versions, supporting the effort to validate the English-language SRSI version.

Symptom coaching and symptom validity tests: An analog study using the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology, Self-Report Symptom Inventory, and Inventory of Problems-29

In this pilot and exploratory study, we tested the robustness of three self-report symptom validity tests (SVTs) to symptom coaching for depression, with and without additional information available on the Internet. Specifically, we divided our sample (N = 193) so that each subject received either the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; n = 64), the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI; n = 66), or the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; n = 63). Within each of the three subgroups, approximately one third of participants were instructed to respond honestly (Genuine Condition, nSIMS = 21; nSRSI = 24; nIOP-29 = 26) and approximately two-thirds were instructed to feign depression. One half of the feigners were presented with a vignette to increase their compliance with instructions and were given information about symptoms of depression (Coached Feigning, nSIMS = 25; nSRSI = 18; nIOP-29 = 21), and the other half were given the same vignette and information about symptoms of depression, plus two Internet links to review before completing the test (Internet-Coached Feigning, nSIMS = 18; nSRSI = 24; nIOP-29 = 16). Overall, the results showed that the genuine conditions yielded the lowest total scores on all three measures, while the two feigning conditions did not significantly differ from each other. Looking at the detection rates for all feigning participants, all three measures showed satisfactory results, with IOP-29 performing slightly better than SIMS and SIMS performing slightly better than SRSI. Internet-Coached Feigners scored slightly lower on all three measures than feigners who were coached without the Internet links. Taken together, the results of this preliminary and exploratory study suggest that all three SVTs examined are sensitive to feigned depression even in the presence of symptom coaching, both with and without additional Internet-based information.

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

In psychological injury and related forensic evaluations, two types of tests are commonly used to assess Negative Response Bias (NRB): Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). SVTs assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms, whereas PVTs assess the credibility of observed performance on cognitive tasks. Compared to the large and ever-growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated self-report SVTs available to professionals for assessing symptom validity. In addition, while several studies have examined how to combine and integrate the results of multiple independent PVTs, there are few studies to date that have addressed the combination and integration of information obtained from multiple self-report SVTs. The Special Issue of Psychological Injury and Law introduced in this article aims to help fill these gaps in the literature by providing readers with detailed information about the convergent and incremental validity, strengths and weaknesses, and applicability of a number of selected measures of NRB under different conditions and in different assessment contexts. Each of the articles in this Special Issue focuses on a particular self-report SVT or set of SVTs and summarizes their conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and possible cut scores and relative hit rates. Here, we review the psychometric properties of the 19 selected SVTs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we make tentative proposals for the field to consider regarding the number of SVTs to be used in an assessment, the number of SVT failures required to invalidate test results, and the issue of redundancy when selecting multiple SVTs for an assessment.