Detecting over-reporting of symptoms: the French version of the self-report symptom inventory

Psychometric validation of the Italian Self-Report Symptoms inventory (SRSI): Factor structure, construct validity, and diagnostic accuracy

The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a novel tool designed to detect symptom overreporting and other forms of noncredible responding. Unlike existing scales, the SRSI includes genuine and pseudosymptoms scales covering cognitive, affective, motor, pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder domains. The present study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the Italian Version of the SRSI (SRSI-It), in particular, its factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Data from 1180 healthy participants showed a hierarchical structure with higher-order constructs for genuine symptoms and pseudosymptoms, each comprising five subscales. The SRSI-It showed a strong convergent validity with the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology and discriminant validity through low correlations with the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined cut scores of 6 (95% specificity) and 9 (98% specificity) for pseudosymptoms, with a Ratio Index score of 0.289 (82% specificity). In summary, the SRSI-It appears to be a promising tool for identifying symptom exaggeration in clinical and forensic contexts, ultimately enhancing the quality and reliability of evaluations in these contexts.

How Plausible Is the Implausible? Students’ Plausibility and Prevalence Ratings of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory

Some self-report symptom validity tests, such as the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI), rely on a detection strategy that uses bizarre, extreme, or very rare symptoms. Thus, items are constructed to invite respondents with an invalid response style to affirm pseudosymptoms that are usually not experienced by genuine patients. However, these pseudosymptoms should not be easily recognizable, because otherwise sophisticated over-reporters could strategically avoid them and go undetected. Therefore, we tested how well future psychology professionals were able to differentiate between genuine complaints and pseudosymptoms in terms of their plausibility and prevalence.

Psychology students (N = 87) received the items of the SRSI online and were given the task to rate each item as to its plausibility and prevalence in the community.

Students evaluated genuine symptoms as significantly more plausible and more prevalent than pseudosymptoms. However, 56% of students rated pseudosymptoms as moderately plausible, whereas 17% rated them as moderately prevalent in the general public.

Overall, it appears that psychology students are successful in distinguishing bizarre, unusual, or rare symptoms from genuine complaints. Yet, the majority of students still attributed relatively high prima facie plausibility to pseudosymptoms. We contend that if such a trusting attitude is true for psychology students, it may also be the case for young psychology practitioners, which, consequently, may diminish the probability of employing self-report validity measures in psychological assessments.

Prevalence of overreporting on symptom validity tests in a large sample of psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatients

Objective: Noncredible symptom claims, regularly expected in forensic contexts, may also occur in clinical and rehabilitation referral contexts. Hidden motives and secondary gain expectations may play a significant role in clinical patients. We studied the prevalence of noncredible symptom report in patients treated for minor mental disorders in an inpatient setting.Method: Five hundred and thirty seven clinical inpatients of a psychosomatic rehabilitation center were studied (mean age: 50.2 years; native speakers of German). They were referred for treatment of depression, anxiety, somatoform disorder, adjustment disorder, and neurasthenia. Results of two symptom validity tests (Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, SIMS; Self-Report Symptom Inventory, SRSI) and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) were analyzed.Results: At screening level, 34.5% and 29.8% of the patients were found to presumably overreport symptoms on the SIMS and SRSI, respectively. At the standard cut score of the SRSI (maximum false positive rate: 5%), the proportion of diagnosed overreporting was 18.8%. SIMS and SRSI pseudosymptom endorsement correlated at .73. Highly elevated depressive symptom claims with BDI-II scores above 40, found in 9.3% of the patients, were associated with elevated pseudosymptom endorsement. Moreover, extended times of sick leave and higher expectations of disability pension were associated with elevated pseudosymptom endorsement.Conclusions: The prevalence of symptom overreporting in some clinical patient groups is a serious, yet underinvestigated problem. The current estimates yielded a high prevalence of distorted, noncredible symptom claims in psychosomatic rehabilitation patients. The challenges arising to health professionals working in such settings are immense and need more consideration.

Equivalence of the German and the French Versions of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory

Abstract. Against the background of the growing importance of symptom validity assessment both in forensic and clinical or rehabilitation contexts, a new instrument for identifying overreporting was developed. In order to study the equivalence of the German and the French versions, we divided the item pool of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) into two presumably equivalent half-forms. A sample of 40 adult bilingual Swiss nationals with a mean age of 39.9 years responded honestly to one of the half-forms in German and to the other in French. In a subsequent experimental malingering condition, they were asked to simulate sequelae of a whiplash injury and to respond to the SRSI again. In both conditions, they also filled out the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). The results showed no differences between the two language versions in both conditions. Classification accuracy was very high (100% specificity, 90% sensitivity for the standard cutoff score). Reliability estimates were 0.93 for endorsement of genuine symptoms and 0.97 for pseudosymptom endorsement. In the malingering condition, the correlation between the number of reported pseudosymptoms and the SIMS scores was 0.69. The current results add to the database available for the SRSI and support the appropriateness of the French version.