4.2 Article

An Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) study investigating feigned schizophrenia and random responding in a British community sample

Journal

PSYCHIATRY PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 235-254

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1767720

Keywords

British; feigning; Inventory of Problems; IOP-29; malingering; O-LIFE; Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences; random responding; schizophrenia; schizotypy

Funding

  1. ESRC [ES/N009614/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While malingering research is still scarce in the United Kingdom compared to other Western countries, the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) has shown excellent validity in detecting feigned schizophrenia, with a newly introduced scale aimed at detecting random responding demonstrating very promising results.
Compared to other Western countries, malingering research is still relatively scarce in the United Kingdom, partly because only a few brief and easy-to-use symptom validity tests (SVTs) have been validated for use with British test-takers. This online study examined the validity of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) in detecting feigned schizophrenia and random responding in 151 British volunteers. Each participant took three IOP-29 test administrations: (a) responding honestly; (b) pretending to suffer from schizophrenia; and (c) responding at random. Additionally, they also responded to a schizotypy measure (O-LIFE) under standard instruction. The IOP-29's feigning scale (FDS) showed excellent validity in discriminating honest responding from feigned schizophrenia (AUC = .99), and its classification accuracy was not significantly affected by the presence of schizotypal traits. Additionally, a recently introduced IOP-29 scale aimed at detecting random responding (RRS) demonstrated very promising results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available