ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Detecting Malingered COVID-19 Symptoms Using the Verifiability Approach.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has heightened concerns about malingering, particularly given its recognition as an occupational disease in several regions. This study evaluated the applicability of the Verifiability Approach (VA), a credibility assessment tool based on the principle that liars provide fewer verifiable details than truth tellers, to distinguish between honest reporters and malingerers of COVID-19 infection.
methodsA total of 410 participants (51.5% female) completed an online survey via Google Forms. Participants who reported previous COVID-19 infection (n = 205) were assigned to either an informed honest (n = 104) or not-informed honest (n = 101) group, while those without prior infection (n = 205) were assigned to informed malingerers (n = 105) or not-informed malingerers (n = 100) conditions. Participants in the informed condition were briefed about the VA before writing their reports.
resultsInformed honest participants provided significantly more verifiable details than both uninformed honest participants and malingerers. The number of verifiable details and the ratio of verifiable details to total details were strongly associated with honesty when participants were informed about the VA, indicating that the information Protocol enhanced diagnostic accuracy. Perceived success was higher among honest participants, particularly those informed about the VA. No significant effects emerged for reported long COVID or fabricated symptoms, likely due to limited variability and low symptom familiarity.
conclusionThe findings support the VA's validity in distinguishing genuine from feigned symptom reports in health-related contexts. However, the fully online design, lack of factual verification, and potential for misreporting represent key limitations. Future studies should replicate these results in face-to-face or ecologically valid settings and extend the VA framework to the study of symptom dissimulation.
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.