Literature DB >> 30542818

Predicting instructed simulation and dissimulation when screening for depressive symptoms.

Stephan Goerigk1,2,3, Sven Hilbert4,5, Andrea Jobst6, Peter Falkai6, Markus Bühner4, Clemens Stachl4, Bernd Bischl7, Stefan Coors7, Thomas Ehring8, Frank Padberg6, Nina Sarubin4,6,9.   

Abstract

The intentional distortion of test results presents a fundamental problem to self-report-based psychiatric assessment, such as screening for depressive symptoms. The first objective of the study was to clarify whether depressed patients like healthy controls possess both the cognitive ability and motivation to deliberately influence results of commonly used screening measures. The second objective was the construction of a method derived directly from within the test takers' responses to systematically detect faking behavior. Supervised machine learning algorithms posit the potential to empirically learn the implicit interconnections between responses, which shape detectable faking patterns. In a standardized design, faking bad and faking good were experimentally induced in a matched sample of 150 depressed and 150 healthy subjects. Participants completed commonly used questionnaires to detect depressive and associated symptoms. Group differences throughout experimental conditions were evaluated using linear mixed-models. Machine learning algorithms were trained on the test results and compared regarding their capacity to systematically predict distortions in response behavior in two scenarios: (1) differentiation of authentic patient responses from simulated responses of healthy participants; (2) differentiation of authentic patient responses from dissimulated patient responses. Statistically significant convergence of the test scores in both faking conditions suggests that both depressive patients and healthy controls have the cognitive ability as well as the motivational compliance to alter their test results. Evaluation of the algorithmic capability to detect faking behavior yielded ideal predictive accuracies of up to 89%. Implications of the findings, as well as future research objectives are discussed. Trial Registration The study was pre-registered at the German registry for clinical trials (Deutsches Register klinischer Studien, DRKS; DRKS00007708).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Depression; Faking; Machine learning; Response patterns

Year:  2018        PMID: 30542818     DOI: 10.1007/s00406-018-0967-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0940-1334            Impact factor:   5.270


  33 in total

1.  Comment: Warning malingerers produces more sophisticated malingering.

Authors:  J R Youngjohn; P R Lees-Haley; L M Binder
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking.

Authors:  Edwin A J van Hooft; Marise Ph Born
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2011-10-03

3.  Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance.

Authors:  Eric D Heggestad; Morgan Morrison; Charlie L Reeve; Rodney A McCloy
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2006-01

4.  Assessing dissimulation among Social Security disability income claimants.

Authors:  G A Griffin; J Normington; R May; D Glassmire
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1996-12

5.  Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012).

Authors:  Ronald R Holden; Christine E Lambert
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2015-12

Review 6.  Cognitive deficits in depression: possible implications for functional neuropathology.

Authors:  M P Austin; P Mitchell; G M Goodwin
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.319

7.  Secondary gain as hidden motive for getting psychiatric treatment.

Authors:  Jacques Van Egmond; Ischa Kummeling; Ton Aan Balkom
Journal:  Eur Psychiatry       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.361

8.  Effort and cognition in depression.

Authors:  R M Cohen; H Weingartner; S A Smallberg; D Pickar; D L Murphy
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1982-05

9.  Theory of mind disability in major depression with or without psychotic symptoms: a componential view.

Authors:  Yong-Guang Wang; Yi-Qiang Wang; Shu-Lin Chen; Chun-Yan Zhu; Kai Wang
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 3.222

10.  Detecting malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain: a comparison of three forced-choice symptom validity tests.

Authors:  Kevin W Greve; Jonathan Ord; Kelly L Curtis; Kevin J Bianchini; Adrianne Brennan
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.535

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Malingering of Psychotic Symptoms in Psychiatric Settings: Theoretical Aspects and Clinical Considerations.

Authors:  Val Bellman; Anisha Chinthalapally; Ethan Johnston; Nina Russell; Jared Bruce; Shazia Saleem
Journal:  Psychiatry J       Date:  2022-04-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.