PTSD Symptom Validity: Initial Psychometric Data on Malingering Detection Strategy Indices in a Piloted New PTSD Instrument

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Weaver ◽  
Kim Yano ◽  
Rebecca Jackson ◽  
Erina Hsu ◽  
Hannah Neumann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ptsd Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Detection Strategy ◽  
Psychometric Data ◽  
Malingering Detection

PTSD Symptom Validity: Update and Replication of Pilot Psychometric Data for Malingering Detection Strategy Indices

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Weaver ◽  
Avanti Jangalapalli ◽  
Kimberly Yano ◽  
Charles Ramskov ◽  
Paul Marcille
Keyword(s):  
Ptsd Symptom ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Detection Strategy ◽  
Psychometric Data ◽  
Malingering Detection

Symptom Validity Testing

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Lee H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Memory Deficits ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Sensory Cues ◽  
Validity Testing ◽  
Symptom Validity Testing ◽  
Tunnel Vision ◽  
Blurry Vision ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation ◽  
Choice Testing

Abstract Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.

Impairment Questions and Answers

1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Testing ◽  
Symptom Validity Testing ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Tunnel Vision ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Blurry Vision ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation ◽  
Choice Testing ◽  
Rule Out

Abstract Symptom validity testing, also known as forced-choice testing, is a way to assess the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness—the common feature of which is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. Symptom validity testing comprises two elements: A specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared with the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. Scoring below a norm can be explained in many different ways (eg, fatigue, evaluation anxiety, limited intelligence, and so on), but scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deception. The positive predictive value of the symptom validity technique likely is quite high because there is no alternative explanation to deliberate distortion when performance is below the probability of chance. The sensitivity of this technique is not likely to be good because, as with a thermometer, positive findings indicate that a problem is present, but negative results do not rule out a problem. Although a compelling conclusion is that the examinee who scores below probabilities is deliberately motivated to perform poorly, malingering must be concluded from the total clinical context.

Die deutsche Version der Modified PTSD Symptom Scale (MPSS): Erste psychometrische Befunde zu einem Screeningverfahren für posttraumatische Symptomatik

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Spitzer ◽  
Gerit Abraham ◽  
Konrad Reschke ◽  
Harald J. Freyberger
Keyword(s):  
Ptsd Symptom ◽  
Symptom Scale

Zusammenfassung. Theoretischer Hintergrund: Bisherige Selbstbeurteilungsinstrumente zur Abbildung posttraumatischer Belastungsstörungen (PTSD) berücksichtigen häufig den Symptomschweregrad nicht; außerdem setzen sie voraus, daß das Trauma bekannt sein muß. Fragestellung: Wir untersuchten die psychometrischen Eigenschaften eines Screeningverfahrens, das unabhängig von einem bekannten Trauma auch die Symptomintensität erfaßt. Methode: Die Modified PTSD Symptom Scale (MPSS) wurde bei 103 stationär psychiatrischen Patienten eingesetzt, die auch mit einem standardisierten Interview (DIA-X) untersucht wurden. Ergebnisse: Die Werte für Cronbachs Alpha lagen zwischen .88 und .94. Die Übereinstimmung zwischen MPSS-Verdachts- und DIA-X-Diagnosen lag zwischen 65% und 82%. Die innere Konsistenz ähnelt denen anderer Verfahren. Schlußfolgerungen: Für den klinischen Kontext erweist sich die MPSS dadurch vorteilhaft, daß sie die PTSD-Symptomatologie unabhängig von einem bekannten Trauma in ihrer Häufigkeit und ihrem Schweregrad erfaßt.

The association between daily PTSD symptom severity and alcohol-related outcomes in recent traumatic injury victims.

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryce Hruska ◽  
Maria L. Pacella ◽  
Richard L. George ◽  
Douglas L. Delahanty
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Ptsd Symptom ◽  
Traumatic Injury ◽  
Ptsd Symptom Severity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document