Abstract
Symptom validity tests (SVTs) are predicated on the assumption that overendorsement of atypical symptoms flags symptom exaggeration (i.e., questionable symptom validity). However, few studies have explored how practitioners from different cultural backgrounds evaluate such symptoms. We asked professionals working in Western (n = 56) and non-Western countries (n = 37) to rate the plausibility of uncommon symptoms taken from the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS), dissociative symptoms from the Dissociative Experience Scale (DES-T), and standard symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression) from the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18). Western and non-Western experts gave similar plausibility ratings to atypical, dissociative, and standard symptoms: both groups judged BSI-18 symptoms as significantly more plausible than either dissociative or atypical symptoms, while the latter two categories did not differ. Our results suggest that the strategy to detect symptom exaggeration by exploring overendorsement of atypical items might work in a non-western context as well.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 274-281 |
Number of pages | 8 |
Journal | Psychological Injury and Law |
Volume | 10 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 28 Jul 2017 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2017 |
Keywords
- sympton validity assessment
- atypical symptons
- cross-cultural research
- structured inventory of malingered symptomatology