Department of Psychology, Fordham University.
Psychol Assess. 2011 Mar;23(1):95-107. doi: 10.1037/a0021149.
The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) is often touted as the gold standard of measures of feigning. This label likely arises in part out of the impressive accuracy rates reported in the extensive validation research that preceded its publication. However, since its publication, researchers not only have continued to investigate the measure's utility but have expanded the study of the SIRS to include novel populations, different study methodologies, and abbreviated versions. The current review examines 26 studies using the SIRS to identify feigning, evaluating both its effectiveness at differentiating feigners from genuine responders and the potential impact of moderating variables. Meta-analyses revealed that research published since the initial validation studies demonstrate higher sensitivity but lower specificity rates than those reported in the SIRS manual. Studies in which feigners were composed of simulators yielded higher classification rates than studies sampling actual suspected malingerers. Furthermore, genuine patient samples were significantly more likely than nonclinical samples to be misclassified as feigning. Abbreviated versions of the SIRS also demonstrated equivalent accuracy with the standard measure. The implications of these findings for clinical practice are discussed.
《报告症状的结构化访谈（SIRS；Rogers、Bagby 和 Dickens，1992）》通常被誉为伪装测谎的黄金标准。这种说法可能部分源于在其发表之前广泛的验证研究中报告的令人印象深刻的准确率。然而，自发表以来，研究人员不仅继续调查该测量的效用，还扩展了对 SIRS 的研究，包括新的人群、不同的研究方法和缩写版本。本综述检查了 26 项使用 SIRS 来识别伪装的研究，评估了它区分伪装者和真实反应者的有效性，以及调节变量的潜在影响。荟萃分析显示，自最初的验证研究以来发表的研究报告的敏感性高于 SIRS 手册中报告的敏感性，但特异性较低。由模拟者组成的伪装者的研究产生了比抽样实际疑似装病者的研究更高的分类率。此外，真正的患者样本被错误分类为装病的可能性明显高于非临床样本。SIRS 的缩写版本也与标准测量具有同等的准确性。讨论了这些发现对临床实践的影响。
