Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34849185›Full record

ReviewPsychological injury and law2022

Symptom and Performance Validity Assessment in European Countries: an Update.

Thomas Merten, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Vicki Hall, Thomas Bodner, Luciano Giromini, Johann Lehrner, Héctor González-Ordi, Pablo Santamaría, Ben Schmand, Giuseppe Di Stefano

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological injury and law, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Validity assessment in Eastern Europe: cross-validation of the Dot Counting Test and MODEMM against the TOMM-1 and Rey-15 in a Romanian mixed clinical sample.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  5. Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) and Inventory of Problems-Memory (IOP-M) failure rates in patients with severe psychosis with and without criminal convictions.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025
    Article
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

10 authors.

Thomas MertenDepartment of Neurology, Vivantes Klinikum Im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8423-8507
Brechje Dandachi-FitzGeraldDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Vicki HallNeuromindworks Director, Sutton Coldfield, Great Britain.
Thomas BodnerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Luciano GirominiDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Johann LehrnerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Héctor González-OrdiFaculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Pablo SantamaríaTEA Ediciones, Madrid, Spain.
Ben SchmandBrain & Cognition, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giuseppe Di StefanoIB-Bern GmbH, Berne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2013, a special issue of the Spanish journal

Indexed as

MalingeringPerformance validity testPsychological assessmentSymptom validity testValidity

Identifiers

PMID34849185
PMCPMC8612718

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.