Browsing by Subject "Feigning"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Prevalence Estimates of Symptom Feigning and Malingering in Spain
    (Springer, 2022-07-26) Puente‑López, Esteban; Pina, David; Reyes López‑López; Héctor González Ordi; Irena Bošković; Thomas Merten; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    Symptom feigning and malingering should be evaluated in forensic contexts due to their important socio-economic consequences. Despite this, to date, there is little research in Spain that evaluates its prevalence. The aim of this study was to investigate this issue using the perception of the general population, students, and professionals of medicine and forensic psychology. Three adapted questionnaires were applied to a total of 1003 participants (61.5% women) from 5 different groups. Approximately two-thirds of participants reported knowing someone who feigned symptoms, and one-third disclosed feigning symptoms themselves in the past. Headache/migraine, neck pain, and anxious–depressive symptoms were the most commonly chosen. Experts in psychology and forensic medicine estimated a prevalence of 20 to 40% of non-credible symptom presentations in their work settings and reported not having sufficient means to assess the distorted presentation of symptoms with certainty. Professionals and laypersons alike acknowledge that non-credible symptom presentations (like feigning or malingering) are relevant in Spain and occur at a non-trivial rate, which compares with estimates in other parts of the world.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Self-report Measures for Symptom Validity Assessment in Whiplash-associated Disorders
    (Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid (COPM), 2022-05-26) Pina, David; Puente López, Esteban; Ruiz Hernández, José Antonio; Llor Esteban, Bartolomé; Aguerrevere, Luis E.; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    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. -----------
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Restricted
    The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): a systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.
    (American Psychological Association, 2023-01-12) Pina, David; Puente López, Esteban; López Nicolás, Rubén; Iguacel, Isabel; Arce, Ramón; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29) is a 29-item self-administered symptom validity test (SVT) that assesses the credibility of clinical presentations related to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression/anxiety, psychosis, cognitive impairment and combination thereof. To date, no publications have summarized the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 using a bivariate meta-analytical approach that preserves the two-dimensional nature of the estimators. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the IOP-29 according to the relevant guidelines. Twenty-one independent samples were included, with a total sample size of 4,163 participants. The results indicated that the IOP-29 is able to discriminate adequately between instructed simulators and healthy controls/clinical patients. Using the recommended cutoff (False Disorder Probability Score [FDS], ≥ .50), a sensitivity of 82% was achieved, maintaining specificity at 93% (false positive rate of 7%). The language of the test and the type of comparison group have been identified as possible sources of heterogeneity. Specificity decreases for the non-English version of the IOP-29, for the FDS ≥ .30, and also decreases for studies using clinical controls, for all three cutoff scores. In general, our findings support the usefulness of the IOP-29 as an SVT; however, most of the included studies use a simulation design and have been coauthored by the test authors. Likewise, about half of the studies did not include bona fide patient controls but only nonclinical controls. The results obtained are highly promising, but further research, especially that using the criterion group paradigm, is recommended.