Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30542818›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2020

Predicting instructed simulation and dissimulation when screening for depressive symptoms.

Stephan Goerigk, Sven Hilbert, Andrea Jobst, Peter Falkai, Markus Bühner, Clemens Stachl, Bernd Bischl, Stefan Coors, Thomas Ehring, Frank Padberg and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephan GoerigkDepartment of Psychological Methodology and Assessment, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. stephan.goerigk@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3021-0346
Sven HilbertDepartment of Psychological Methodology and Assessment, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andrea JobstDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Nussbaumstrasse 7, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Peter FalkaiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Nussbaumstrasse 7, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Markus BühnerDepartment of Psychological Methodology and Assessment, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Clemens StachlDepartment of Psychological Methodology and Assessment, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bernd BischlDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Stefan CoorsDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Thomas EhringDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Frank PadbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Nussbaumstrasse 7, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Nina SarubinDepartment of Psychological Methodology and Assessment, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEHochschule Fresenius · DEUniversity of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intentional distortion of test results presents a fundamental problem to self-report-based psychiatric assessment, such as screening for depressive symptoms. The first objective of the study was to clarify whether depressed patients like healthy controls possess both the cognitive ability and motivation to deliberately influence results of commonly used screening measures. The second objective was the construction of a method derived directly from within the test takers' responses to systematically detect faking behavior. Supervised machine learning algorithms posit the potential to empirically learn the implicit interconnections between responses, which shape detectable faking patterns. In a standardized design, faking bad and faking good were experimentally induced in a matched sample of 150 depressed and 150 healthy subjects. Participants completed commonly used questionnaires to detect depressive and associated symptoms. Group differences throughout experimental conditions were evaluated using linear mixed-models. Machine learning algorithms were trained on the test results and compared regarding their capacity to systematically predict distortions in response behavior in two scenarios: (1) differentiation of authentic patient responses from simulated responses of healthy participants; (2) differentiation of authentic patient responses from dissimulated patient responses. Statistically significant convergence of the test scores in both faking conditions suggests that both depressive patients and healthy controls have the cognitive ability as well as the motivational compliance to alter their test results. Evaluation of the algorithmic capability to detect faking behavior yielded ideal predictive accuracies of up to 89%. Implications of the findings, as well as future research objectives are discussed. Trial Registration The study was pre-registered at the German registry for clinical trials (Deutsches Register klinischer Studien, DRKS; DRKS00007708).

Indexed as

DeceptionPsychometricsSupervised Machine LearningAdultDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMalingeringPredictive Value of TestsYoung AdultAssessmentDepressionFakingMachine learningResponse patterns

Identifiers

PMID30542818
OpenAlexW2905250251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.