Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626209›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2026

Cross-cultural applicability of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29): a pre-registered German replication of Akca, Tepedelen, et al. (2023).

Henrike Höpfner, Burcu Uysal, Mark Stemmler, Ali Y E Akca, Luciano Giromini

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, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Henrike HöpfnerDepartment of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3892-1039
Burcu UysalDepartment of Psychology, Ibn Haldun University, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-2655
Mark StemmlerDepartment of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4321-1302
Ali Y E AkcaForensic Psychology Section, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3450-7059
Luciano GirominiDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-4803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing the credibility of psychological problems in forensic evaluations is crucial. The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) is becoming a valuable symptom validity test (SVT) worldwide and has been validated in over 15 languages. This study evaluates the German IOP-29 and fills a gap by replicating a study of Akca, Tepedelen, et al. We analysed 384 IOP-29 protocols from 128 German-speaking adults (range = 18-87 years) under three conditions: honest, random and feigned responses (post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD; depression; schizophrenia). Statistical analyses showed that the False Disorder Probability Score (FDS) effectively discriminated between honest and feigned responses (Hedges

Indexed as

depressionfeigningGermanIOP–29malingeringPTSDschizophreniasymptom validity test

Identifiers

PMID41626209
PMCPMC12857672

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.