欧洲国家的症状效度评估:发展与现状

IF 2.3 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Thomas Merten, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Vicki Hall, Ben A. Schmandd, Pablo Santamaríae, Héctor González-Ordi
{"title":"欧洲国家的症状效度评估:发展与现状","authors":"Thomas Merten,&nbsp;Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald,&nbsp;Vicki Hall,&nbsp;Ben A. Schmandd,&nbsp;Pablo Santamaríae,&nbsp;Héctor González-Ordi","doi":"10.1016/S1130-5274(13)70014-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the past, the practice of symptom validity assessment (SVA) in European countries was considerably lagging behind developments in North America, with the topic of malingering being largely taboo for psychological and medical professionals. This was being changed in the course of the past decade with a growing interest in methods for the assessment of negative response bias. European estimates of suboptimal test performance in civil and social forensic contexts point at base rates similar to those obtained in North America. Symptom over-reporting and underperformance in neuropsychological examinations appear to occur in a sizable proportion of patients. Although there is considerable progress in establishing SVA as an integral and indispensable part of psychological and neuropsychological assessment in some countries, others appear to lag behind. In some countries there is still enormous resistance against SVA from part of the neuropsychological and psychiatric communities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45730,"journal":{"name":"Clinica Y Salud","volume":"24 3","pages":"Pages 129-138"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1130-5274(13)70014-8","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Symptom validity assessment in European countries: Development and state of the art\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Merten,&nbsp;Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald,&nbsp;Vicki Hall,&nbsp;Ben A. Schmandd,&nbsp;Pablo Santamaríae,&nbsp;Héctor González-Ordi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1130-5274(13)70014-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the past, the practice of symptom validity assessment (SVA) in European countries was considerably lagging behind developments in North America, with the topic of malingering being largely taboo for psychological and medical professionals. This was being changed in the course of the past decade with a growing interest in methods for the assessment of negative response bias. European estimates of suboptimal test performance in civil and social forensic contexts point at base rates similar to those obtained in North America. Symptom over-reporting and underperformance in neuropsychological examinations appear to occur in a sizable proportion of patients. Although there is considerable progress in establishing SVA as an integral and indispensable part of psychological and neuropsychological assessment in some countries, others appear to lag behind. In some countries there is still enormous resistance against SVA from part of the neuropsychological and psychiatric communities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinica Y Salud\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 129-138\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1130-5274(13)70014-8\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinica Y Salud\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1130527413700148\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinica Y Salud","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1130527413700148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去,欧洲国家的症状效度评估(SVA)的实践大大落后于北美的发展,装病的话题在很大程度上是心理和医学专业人员的禁忌。在过去十年中,随着对负面反应偏见评估方法的兴趣日益浓厚,这种情况正在发生变化。欧洲在民事和社会法医环境下的次优测试表现估计与北美的基本比率相似。在神经心理学检查中,症状过度报告和表现不佳似乎发生在相当大比例的患者中。虽然在一些国家,将心理评估作为心理和神经心理评估不可缺少的组成部分取得了相当大的进展,但其他国家似乎落后了。在一些国家,部分神经心理学和精神病学社区对SVA仍然存在巨大的阻力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Symptom validity assessment in European countries: Development and state of the art

In the past, the practice of symptom validity assessment (SVA) in European countries was considerably lagging behind developments in North America, with the topic of malingering being largely taboo for psychological and medical professionals. This was being changed in the course of the past decade with a growing interest in methods for the assessment of negative response bias. European estimates of suboptimal test performance in civil and social forensic contexts point at base rates similar to those obtained in North America. Symptom over-reporting and underperformance in neuropsychological examinations appear to occur in a sizable proportion of patients. Although there is considerable progress in establishing SVA as an integral and indispensable part of psychological and neuropsychological assessment in some countries, others appear to lag behind. In some countries there is still enormous resistance against SVA from part of the neuropsychological and psychiatric communities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinica Y Salud
Clinica Y Salud PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
16
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信