Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2022 Sep-Oct;29(5):1221-1230. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2020.1864375. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
We investigated the classification accuracy of the Inventory of Problems - 29 (IOP-29), its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) and the Fifteen Item Test (FIT) in an Australian community sample ( = 275). One third of the participants ( = 93) were asked to respond honestly, two thirds were instructed to feign mild TBI. Half of the feigners ( = 90) were coached to avoid detection by not exaggerating, half were not ( = 92). All measures successfully discriminated between honest responders and feigners, with large effect sizes ( ≥ 1.96). The effect size for the IOP-29 ( ≥ 4.90), however, was about two-to-three times larger than those produced by the IOP-M and FIT. Also noteworthy, the IOP-29 and IOP-M showed excellent sensitivity (>90% the former, > 80% the latter), in both the coached and uncoached feigning conditions, at perfect specificity. Instead, the sensitivity of the FIT was 71.7% within the uncoached simulator group and 53.3% within the coached simulator group, at a nearly perfect specificity of 98.9%. These findings suggest that the validity of the IOP-29 and IOP-M should generalize to Australian examinees and that the IOP-29 and IOP-M likely outperform the FIT in the detection of feigned mTBI.
我们调查了问题清单-29（IOP-29）、其新开发的记忆模块（IOP-M）和 15 项测试（FIT）在澳大利亚社区样本中的分类准确性（ = 275）。三分之一的参与者（ = 93）被要求如实回答，三分之二的参与者被指示假装轻度 TBI。一半的伪装者（ = 90）被指导通过不夸大来避免被发现，另一半则没有（ = 92）。所有的措施都成功地区分了诚实的回答者和伪装者，效果大小很大（ ≥ 1.96）。然而，IOP-29 的效果大小（ ≥ 4.90）大约是 IOP-M 和 FIT 的两到三倍。同样值得注意的是，在有指导和无指导的伪装条件下，IOP-29 和 IOP-M 都表现出了极好的敏感性（前者>90%，后者>80%），特异性均为完美（>99%）。相比之下，在无指导的模拟组中，FIT 的敏感性为 71.7%，在有指导的模拟组中为 53.3%，特异性接近完美（98.9%）。这些发现表明，IOP-29 和 IOP-M 的有效性应该适用于澳大利亚的受检者，并且 IOP-29 和 IOP-M 可能比 FIT 更能检测出假装的 mTBI。
