Observational studyPloS one2019
Indicators to distinguish symptom accentuators from symptom producers in individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder: A pilot study on inconsistency subtypes using SIMS and MMPI-2-RF.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptom and Performance Validity Assessment in European Countries: an Update.Psychological injury and law · 2022Review
- Article
- Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Stress, Burnout, and Resilience among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Emergency: The Role of Defense Mechanisms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Long-COVID Syndrome? A Study on the Persistence of Neurological, Psychological and Physiological Symptoms.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Psychodynamic Approach During COVID-19 Emotional Crisis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Predicting Perceived Stress Related to the Covid-19 Outbreak through Stable Psychological Traits and Machine Learning Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- How to Improve Compliance with Protective Health Measures during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model and Machine Learning Algorithms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Interrogative suggestibility in the elderly.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of legal damage evaluations, evaluees may exaggerate or simulate symptoms in an attempt to obtain greater economic compensation. To date, practitioners and researchers have focused on detecting malingering behavior as an exclusively unitary construct. However, we argue that there are two types of inconsistent behavior that speak to possible malingering-accentuating (i.e., exaggerating symptoms that are actually experienced) and simulating (i.e., fabricating symptoms entirely)-each with its own unique attributes; thus, it is necessary to distinguish between them. The aim of the present study was to identify objective indicators to differentiate symptom accentuators from symptom producers and consistent participants. We analyzed the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology scales and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form validity scales of 132 individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood who had undergone assessment for psychiatric/psychological damage. The results indicated that the SIMS Total Score, Neurologic Impairment and Low Intelligence scales and the MMPI-2-RF Infrequent Responses (F-r) and Response Bias (RBS) scales successfully discriminated among symptom accentuators, symptom producers, and consistent participants. Machine learning analysis was used to identify the most efficient parameter for classifying these three groups, recognizing the SIMS Total Score as the best indicator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.