Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001405›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2025

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.

Veronica Tatti, Esteban Puente-López, Donald Viglione, Laszlo Erdodi, Sara Pasqualini, Salvatore Zizolfi, Daniele Zizolfi, Luciano Giromini, Alessandro Zennaro

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Veronica TattiUniversity of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Esteban Puente-LópezDepartment of Psychology, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6367-457X
Donald ViglioneDepartment of Psychology, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA, USA.
Laszlo ErdodiUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0575-9991
Sara PasqualiniUniversity of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Salvatore ZizolfiPrivate Practice, Como, Italy.
Daniele ZizolfiFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Luciano GirominiUniversity of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-4803
Alessandro ZennaroUniversity of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2774-307X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professionals are encouraged to include multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) and multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess the credibility of clinical and forensic presentations. Combining the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29, an SVT) with its Memory module (IOP-M, a PVT), referred to here as 'IOP-29-M', may be especially beneficial, as it allows for rapid assessment of both symptom and performance validity. Accordingly, the present study aimed at 'stress testing' the IOP-29-M by examining base rates of failure (BR

Indexed as

criminal convictionsfeigninginventory of problemsmalingeringperformance validitypsychosissymptom validity

Identifiers

PMID41001405
PMCPMC12459176

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.