IOP-29的生态有效性:使用MMPI-2-RF和SIMS作为标准变量的随访研究。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1037/pas0001273
Paolo Roma, Luciano Giromini, Martin Sellbom, Alessandra Cardinale, Stefano Ferracuti, Cristina Mazza
{"title":"IOP-29的生态有效性:使用MMPI-2-RF和SIMS作为标准变量的随访研究。","authors":"Paolo Roma, Luciano Giromini, Martin Sellbom, Alessandra Cardinale, Stefano Ferracuti, Cristina Mazza","doi":"10.1037/pas0001273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current guidelines for conducting symptom validity assessments require that professionals administer multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) and that the SVTs selected for their evaluations provide nonredundant information. However, not many SVTs are currently available, and most of them rely on the same, (in)frequency-based, feigning detection strategy. In this context, the Inventory of Problems (IOP-29) could be a valuable addition to the assessor's toolbox because of its brevity (29 items) and its different approach to assessing the credibility of presented symptoms. As its ecological validity has been poorly investigated, the present study used a criterion groups design to examine the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 in a data set of 174 court-ordered psychological evaluations focused on psychological injury. The validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and the total score of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms were used as criterion variables. Overall, the results of this study confirm that the IOP-29 is an effective measure (1.70 ≤ <i>d</i> ≤ 2.67) that provides valuable information when added to the multimethod assessment of symptom validity in civil forensic contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"868-879"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ecological validity of the IOP-29: A follow-up study using the MMPI-2-RF and the SIMS as criterion variables.\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Roma, Luciano Giromini, Martin Sellbom, Alessandra Cardinale, Stefano Ferracuti, Cristina Mazza\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Current guidelines for conducting symptom validity assessments require that professionals administer multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) and that the SVTs selected for their evaluations provide nonredundant information. However, not many SVTs are currently available, and most of them rely on the same, (in)frequency-based, feigning detection strategy. In this context, the Inventory of Problems (IOP-29) could be a valuable addition to the assessor's toolbox because of its brevity (29 items) and its different approach to assessing the credibility of presented symptoms. As its ecological validity has been poorly investigated, the present study used a criterion groups design to examine the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 in a data set of 174 court-ordered psychological evaluations focused on psychological injury. The validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and the total score of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms were used as criterion variables. Overall, the results of this study confirm that the IOP-29 is an effective measure (1.70 ≤ <i>d</i> ≤ 2.67) that provides valuable information when added to the multimethod assessment of symptom validity in civil forensic contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"868-879\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001273\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001273","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前进行症状有效性评估的指南要求专业人员进行多项症状有效性测试(SVT),并且为其评估选择的SVT提供非冗余信息。然而,目前可用的SVT并不多,大多数SVT都依赖于相同的、基于频率的、伪装的检测策略。在这种情况下,问题清单(IOP-29)可能是评估员工具箱中的一个有价值的补充,因为它的简洁性(29个项目)和评估所呈现症状可信度的不同方法。由于其生态有效性调查不足,本研究使用标准组设计,在174项法院下令进行的心理评估数据集中检查了IOP-29的分类准确性,这些评估侧重于心理伤害。明尼苏达多相人格量表-2重组表的有效性量表和恶性症状结构化量表的总分被用作标准变量。总体而言,本研究的结果证实,IOP-29是一种有效的测量方法(1.70≤d≤2.67),当添加到民事法医学背景下症状有效性的多方法评估中时,它提供了有价值的信息。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The ecological validity of the IOP-29: A follow-up study using the MMPI-2-RF and the SIMS as criterion variables.

Current guidelines for conducting symptom validity assessments require that professionals administer multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) and that the SVTs selected for their evaluations provide nonredundant information. However, not many SVTs are currently available, and most of them rely on the same, (in)frequency-based, feigning detection strategy. In this context, the Inventory of Problems (IOP-29) could be a valuable addition to the assessor's toolbox because of its brevity (29 items) and its different approach to assessing the credibility of presented symptoms. As its ecological validity has been poorly investigated, the present study used a criterion groups design to examine the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 in a data set of 174 court-ordered psychological evaluations focused on psychological injury. The validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and the total score of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms were used as criterion variables. Overall, the results of this study confirm that the IOP-29 is an effective measure (1.70 ≤ d ≤ 2.67) that provides valuable information when added to the multimethod assessment of symptom validity in civil forensic contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1