Advertisement

Netherlands journal of psychology

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 98–101 | Cite as

Basic knowledge of psychopathology does not undermine the efficacy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychosis

  • Marko Jelicic
  • Maarten J. V. Peters
  • Vanessa Leckie
  • Harald Merckelbach
Article

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine whether basic knowledge of psychopathology undermines the efficacy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) to detect feigned psychosis. The SIMS was administered twice to participants without knowledge of psychopathology (n = 30) and participants with a basic knowledge of psychopathology (n = 31). On one occasion, they had to fill out the SIMS honestly. On the other occasion they were asked to complete the SIMS after they had been instructed to malinger psychosis because they were standing trial for a serious offence and wanted to avoid legal responsibility. Participants with knowledge of psychopathology engaged in less flagrant feigning on the SIMS than those without such knowledge. However, when asked to malinger psychosis, nearly all participants were classified by the SIMS as malingerers, regardless of their knowledge of psychopathology. It seems that a basic knowledge of psychopathology does not undermine the efficacy of the SIMS to detect feigned psychosis. (Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63, 107-110.)

Forensic psychology malingering feigning assessment psychosis psychopathology 

References

  1. Abrahamsen, D. (1985). Confessions of the Son of Sam. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beaber, R.J., Marston, A., Michelli, J & Mills, M.J. (1985). A brief tests for measuring malingering in schizophrenic individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1478-1481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cima, M., Hollnack, S., Kremer, K., Knauer, E., Schellbach-Matties, R., Klein, B. & Merckelbach, H. (2003). Strukturierter Fragebogen Simulierter Symptome: Die Deutsche Version des "Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology: SIMS". Nervenarzt, 11, 977-986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cercy, S.P., Schretlen, D.J. & Brandt, J. (1997). Simulated amnesia and the pseudo-memory phenomena. In: R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, second edition (pp. 85-107). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Edens, J.F., Otto, R.K. & Dwyer, T. (1999). Utility of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology in identifying persons motivated to malinger psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 387-396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jelicic, M., Hessels, A. & Merckelbach, H. (2006). Detection of feigned psychosis with the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A study of coached and uncoached simulators. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 19-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis, J.L., Simcox, A.M. & Berry, D.T.R. (2002). Screening for feigned psychiatric symptoms in a forensic sample by using the MMPI-2 and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Psychological Assessment, 14, 170-176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Merckelbach, H., Koeyvoets, N., Cima, M. & Nijman, H. (2001). De Nederlandse versie van de SIMS. De Psycholoog, 36, 586-591.Google Scholar
  9. Merckelbach, H. & Smith, G.P. (2003). Diagnostic accuracy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in detecting malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 145-152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ornish, S.A. (2001). A blizzard of lies: Bogus psychiatric defenses. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 22, 19-30.Google Scholar
  11. Resnick, P.J. (1997a). Malingered psychosis. In: R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, second edition (pp. 47-67). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Resnick, P.J. (1997b). Malingering of posttraumatic disorders. In: R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, second edition (pp. 130-152). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rogers, R. (1997). Current status of clinical methods. In: R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, second edition (pp. 373-397). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rogers, R., Harrell, E.H. & Liff, C.D. (1993). Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 255-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers, R., Hinds, J.D. & Sewell, K.W. (1996). Feigning psychopathology among adolescent offenders: Validation of the SIRS, MMPI-A, and the SIMS. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 244-257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers, R. & Shumann, D.W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations, second edition. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenhan, D. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 172, 250-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, G.P. (1997). Assessment of malingering with self-report instruments. In: R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, second edition (pp. 351-370). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, G.P. & Burger, G.K.(1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 183-189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Spitzer, R.L., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Miller, M.B. (2005). Rosenhan revisited: The scientific credibility of Lauren Slater’s pseudopatient diagnosis study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193, 734-738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Youngjohn, J.R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluation. Assessment, 2, 279-283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Jelicic
    • 1
  • Maarten J. V. Peters
    • 1
  • Vanessa Leckie
    • 1
  • Harald Merckelbach
    • 1
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations