Raffaella Maria Ribatti, Thomas Merten, Tiziana Lanciano, Antonietta Curci
{"title":"Detecting simulated symptoms in chronic pain and fibromyalgia: A two-study evaluation of the Italian version of the Self-Report Symptom Inventory.","authors":"Raffaella Maria Ribatti, Thomas Merten, Tiziana Lanciano, Antonietta Curci","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2475951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The subjective nature of pain complicates objective verification, often leading to noncredible symptom reports in compensable settings. Across two studies, we evaluated the Italian Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI-It) in distinguishing healthy individuals, simulators, and fibromyalgia patients. In Study 1, we assigned 958 participants to the honest (<i>n</i> = 482) or simulator group (<i>n</i> = 476). Simulators reported higher scores on genuine and pseudosymptoms. A cut score > 6 showed 92% specificity and 64% sensitivity; > 9 raised specificity to 95%. The SRSI-It identified 62% and 58% of simulators at > 6 and > 9, respectively, compared to 76% identified by the SIMS. In Study 2, we recruited 100 patients and paired each with a healthy control and a fibromyalgia simulator (<i>N</i> = 300). Simulators scored highest on pseudosymptoms, while patients scored higher than controls. The SRSI-It identified 73% and 61% of simulators at cut scores of > 6 and > 9, compared to 51% and 34% of patients and 15% and 13% of controls. The SRSI-It demonstrated sensitivity to simulated pain, suggesting its utility in distinguishing simulators from honest respondents in clinical and forensic settings. However, caution is warranted to avoid misclassifying genuine patients, highlighting the need for complementary tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2475951","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The subjective nature of pain complicates objective verification, often leading to noncredible symptom reports in compensable settings. Across two studies, we evaluated the Italian Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI-It) in distinguishing healthy individuals, simulators, and fibromyalgia patients. In Study 1, we assigned 958 participants to the honest (n = 482) or simulator group (n = 476). Simulators reported higher scores on genuine and pseudosymptoms. A cut score > 6 showed 92% specificity and 64% sensitivity; > 9 raised specificity to 95%. The SRSI-It identified 62% and 58% of simulators at > 6 and > 9, respectively, compared to 76% identified by the SIMS. In Study 2, we recruited 100 patients and paired each with a healthy control and a fibromyalgia simulator (N = 300). Simulators scored highest on pseudosymptoms, while patients scored higher than controls. The SRSI-It identified 73% and 61% of simulators at cut scores of > 6 and > 9, compared to 51% and 34% of patients and 15% and 13% of controls. The SRSI-It demonstrated sensitivity to simulated pain, suggesting its utility in distinguishing simulators from honest respondents in clinical and forensic settings. However, caution is warranted to avoid misclassifying genuine patients, highlighting the need for complementary tools.
期刊介绍:
pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.