Indicators to distinguish symptom accentuators from symptom producers in individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder: A pilot study on inconsistency subtypes using SIMS and MMPI-2-RF.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
07
08
2019
accepted:
11
12
2019
entrez:
31
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2019
medline:
3
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the context of legal damage evaluations, evaluees may exaggerate or simulate symptoms in an attempt to obtain greater economic compensation. To date, practitioners and researchers have focused on detecting malingering behavior as an exclusively unitary construct. However, we argue that there are two types of inconsistent behavior that speak to possible malingering-accentuating (i.e., exaggerating symptoms that are actually experienced) and simulating (i.e., fabricating symptoms entirely)-each with its own unique attributes; thus, it is necessary to distinguish between them. The aim of the present study was to identify objective indicators to differentiate symptom accentuators from symptom producers and consistent participants. We analyzed the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology scales and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form validity scales of 132 individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood who had undergone assessment for psychiatric/psychological damage. The results indicated that the SIMS Total Score, Neurologic Impairment and Low Intelligence scales and the MMPI-2-RF Infrequent Responses (F-r) and Response Bias (RBS) scales successfully discriminated among symptom accentuators, symptom producers, and consistent participants. Machine learning analysis was used to identify the most efficient parameter for classifying these three groups, recognizing the SIMS Total Score as the best indicator.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31887214
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227113
pii: PONE-D-19-22331
pmc: PMC6936836
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0227113Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 06;10:389
pubmed: 31275176
Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 25;9:1064
pubmed: 30090076
Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28(8):1336-65
pubmed: 25494444
J Pers Assess. 2017 Sep-Oct;99(5):534-544
pubmed: 27767344
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002 Dec;24(8):1094-102
pubmed: 12650234
Epilepsy Behav. 2012 Aug;24(4):439-44
pubmed: 22683287
J Math Psychol. 2000 Mar;44(1):108-132
pubmed: 10733860
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2010 Jun;25(4):274-84
pubmed: 20335183
Psychol Assess. 2010 Dec;22(4):757-67
pubmed: 21133544
Front Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 08;9:249
pubmed: 29937740
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 06;9:283
pubmed: 29559945
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2010 Mar;25(2):118-25
pubmed: 20110279
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 2;14(1):e0209116
pubmed: 30601844
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997;25(2):183-9
pubmed: 9213290
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009 Nov;24(7):671-80
pubmed: 19797242
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(3):387-96
pubmed: 10509938
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008 Jul;3(4):286-300
pubmed: 26158948
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2019 Feb 17;:1-13
pubmed: 30773041
Law Hum Behav. 2001 Dec;25(6):567-82
pubmed: 11771635
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006 Sep;29(3):629-47
pubmed: 16904503
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013 Nov;28(7):633-9
pubmed: 23800432
Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Jul;42(5):895-900
pubmed: 23187701
Assessment. 2013 Apr;20(2):210-8
pubmed: 23242218
Psychol Assess. 2011 Mar;23(1):95-107
pubmed: 21381842
Law Hum Behav. 2007 Feb;31(1):53-75
pubmed: 17019617
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 16;10:725
pubmed: 31681037
Front Psychol. 2019 Jul 23;10:1650
pubmed: 31396127
Psychol Assess. 2010 Dec;22(4):745-56
pubmed: 20919770
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 2;15(3):e2000797
pubmed: 28253258