Browsing by Subject "Symptom validity"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Classification accuracy and resistance to coaching of the Spanish version of the Inventory of Problems -29 and the Inventory of Problems - Memory: a simulation study with mTBI patients
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-08-24) Pina, David; Puente López, Esteban; Rambaud Quiñones, Paula; Ruiz Hernández, José Antonio; Nieto Cañaveras, María Dolores; Shura, Robert D.; Alcazar Crevillén, Andrés; Martinez Jarreta, Begoña; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    Objective: The present study aims to evaluate the classification accuracy and resistance to coaching of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) and the IOP-Memory (IOP-M) with a Spanish sample of patients diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and healthy participants instructed to feign. Method: Using a simulation design, 37 outpatients with mTBI (clinical control group) and 213 non-clinical instructed feigners under several coaching conditions completed the Spanish versions of the IOP-29, IOP-M, Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, and Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. Results: The IOP-29 discriminated well between clinical patients and instructed feigners, with an excellent classification accuracy for the recommended cutoff score (FDS ≥ .50; sensitivity = 87.10% for coached group and 89.09% for uncoached; specificity = 95.12%). The IOP-M also showed an excellent classification accuracy (cutoff ≤ 29; sensitivity = 87.27% for coached group and 93.55% for uncoached; specificity = 97.56%). Both instruments proved to be resistant to symptom information coaching and performance warnings. Conclusions: The results confirm that both of the IOP measures offer a similarly valid but different perspective compared to SIMS when assessing the credibility of symptoms of mTBI. The encouraging findings indicate that both tests are a valuable addition to the symptom validity practices of forensic professionals. Additional research in multiple contexts and with diverse conditions is warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Prevalence of Symptom Overreporting in the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in Clinical Patients: A Meta- Analysis
    (2024-10-03) Puente López, Esteban; Pina, David; Dandachi-FitzGerald, Brechje; Giromini, Luciano; López Nicolás, Rubén; Nieto Cañaveras, María Dolores; Merten, Thomas; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    Antecedentes: Los fallos en las pruebas de validez de síntomas (puntuar por encima del punto de corte establecido) pueden producirse en diversos contextos y situaciones, incluidos los entornos clínicos rutinarios. Hasta la fecha, ningún metaanálisis se ha centrado en la tasa de fallos del Inventario Estructurado de Simulación de Síntomas (SIMS) en evaluaciones clínicas. Método: Se realizó un meta-análisis de efectos aleatorios binomial-normal para estimar la tasa de fallos combinada del SIMS entre pacientes con un diagnóstico clínico que fueron evaluados en un entorno no forense. Resultados: Se incluyeron 34 estudios y 40 muestras (n = 8844). La puntuación media total del SIMS fue de 15.9 (DE = 5.2). La tasa global estimada de fallo de la SIMS fue del 36% (IC del 95%: 30%-43%; I2 = 96.6%, p < .001). Conclusiones: Existe una elevada tasa de fallo en el SIMS en poblaciones de pacientes clínicos; sin embargo, estos resultados positivos no son necesariamente falsos positivos. El reto metodológico de diferenciar los verdaderos de los falsos positivos es vital y debería dictar tanto la planificación cuidadosa de futuros estudios como la circunspección en la interpretación de las tasas de fallo de las pruebas de validez en las evaluaciones clínicas
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    The risk of bias – symptom and performance validity (RoB-spv): a risk of bias checklist for systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Routledge., 2025-02-28) Puente López, Esteban; Pina, David; Shura, Robert D.; López López, Reyes; Merten, Thomas; Martínez Jarreta, Begoña; Psiquiatría y Psicología Social
    Objective: The analysis of risk of bias in systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) is a fundamental task to ensure the correct synthesis of results. To carry out this task, specific tools must be used for each research design of the studies analyzed. The choice of an appropriate tool is currently a challenge for researchers developing SR and MA in the area of symptom and performance validity because the research designs used have been created specifically for this field. Although these designs can be integrated within the classic classifications, they present a number of particular characteristics that are not reflected in any of the current risk of bias analysis tools. The aim of this study is to design a checklist specifically for systematic review/meta-analysis focused on validity tests. Methods: The checklist was developed through objective review of the existing evidence, development of checklist items, and refinement by external feedback and performance analysis. Results: The checklist is composed of four sections: Clinical comparison group selection, sources of bias in either simulation or criterion group designs, and overall assessment of the study. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with a sample of 20 studies, resulting in good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients for most items. Conclusions: The checklist seeks to fill an important gap in the literature by serving as an assessment tool that improves the reliability of evidence synthesis in symptom and performance validity studies. This instrument facilitates the development of SR and MA that meet international standards, improving methodological rigor and reliability in the forensic setting.