Esteban Puente-López, David Pina, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Luciano Giromini, Rubén López-Nicolás, María Dolores Nieto-Cañaveras, Thomas Merten
{"title":"临床患者结构量表（SIMS）中症状过报的发生率：一项荟萃分析","authors":"Esteban Puente-López, David Pina, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Luciano Giromini, Rubén López-Nicolás, María Dolores Nieto-Cañaveras, Thomas Merten","doi":"10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Failure on symptom validity tests may occur in a variety of contexts and situations, including routine clinical settings. To date, no meta-analysis has targeted the failure rate of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in clinical assessments, nor the factors that may moderate this rate.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used a binomial-normal random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled failure rate of SIMS among patients with a clinical diagnosis who were evaluated in a non-forensic setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 studies and 40 samples were included. The total sample size was 8844 patients. The mean total SIMS score was 15.9 (<i>SD =</i> 5.2). The estimated overall failure rate of SIMS was 36% (95% CI: 30%-43%; <i>I</i> <sup> <i>2</i> </sup> = 96.6%, <i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is an elevated failure rate on the SIMS in clinical patient populations; however, these positive results are not necessarily <i>false</i> positives. The methodological challenge to tell true and false positives apart appears to be of primary importance and should dictate both careful planning of future studies and circumspection when interpreting rates of validity test failure in clinical assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48179,"journal":{"name":"Psicothema","volume":"37 2","pages":"74-85"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of Symptom Overreporting in the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in Clinical Patients: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Esteban Puente-López, David Pina, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald, Luciano Giromini, Rubén López-Nicolás, María Dolores Nieto-Cañaveras, Thomas Merten\",\"doi\":\"10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Failure on symptom validity tests may occur in a variety of contexts and situations, including routine clinical settings. To date, no meta-analysis has targeted the failure rate of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in clinical assessments, nor the factors that may moderate this rate.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used a binomial-normal random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled failure rate of SIMS among patients with a clinical diagnosis who were evaluated in a non-forensic setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 studies and 40 samples were included. The total sample size was 8844 patients. The mean total SIMS score was 15.9 (<i>SD =</i> 5.2). The estimated overall failure rate of SIMS was 36% (95% CI: 30%-43%; <i>I</i> <sup> <i>2</i> </sup> = 96.6%, <i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is an elevated failure rate on the SIMS in clinical patient populations; however, these positive results are not necessarily <i>false</i> positives. The methodological challenge to tell true and false positives apart appears to be of primary importance and should dictate both careful planning of future studies and circumspection when interpreting rates of validity test failure in clinical assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psicothema\",\"volume\":\"37 2\",\"pages\":\"74-85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psicothema\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.18\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psicothema","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.18","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevalence of Symptom Overreporting in the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in Clinical Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Background: Failure on symptom validity tests may occur in a variety of contexts and situations, including routine clinical settings. To date, no meta-analysis has targeted the failure rate of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in clinical assessments, nor the factors that may moderate this rate.
Method: We used a binomial-normal random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled failure rate of SIMS among patients with a clinical diagnosis who were evaluated in a non-forensic setting.
Results: 34 studies and 40 samples were included. The total sample size was 8844 patients. The mean total SIMS score was 15.9 (SD = 5.2). The estimated overall failure rate of SIMS was 36% (95% CI: 30%-43%; I2 = 96.6%, p < .001).
Conclusions: There is an elevated failure rate on the SIMS in clinical patient populations; however, these positive results are not necessarily false positives. The methodological challenge to tell true and false positives apart appears to be of primary importance and should dictate both careful planning of future studies and circumspection when interpreting rates of validity test failure in clinical assessments.
期刊介绍：
La revista Psicothema fue fundada en Asturias en 1989 y está editada conjuntamente por la Facultad y el Departamento de Psicología de la Universidad de Oviedo y el Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos del Principado de Asturias. Publica cuatro números al año. Se admiten trabajos tanto de investigación básica como aplicada, pertenecientes a cualquier ámbito de la Psicología, que previamente a su publicación son evaluados anónimamente por revisores externos. Psicothema está incluida en las bases de datos nacionales e internacionales más relevantes, entre las que cabe destacar Psychological Abstracts, Current Contents y MEDLINE/Index Medicus, entre otras. Además, figura en las listas de Factor de Impacto del Journal Citation Reports. Psicothema es una revista abierta a cualquier enfoque u orientación psicológica que venga avalada por la fuerza de los datos y los argumentos, y en la que encuentran acomodo todos los autores que sean capaces de convencer a los revisores de que sus manuscritos tienen la calidad para ser publicados. Psicothema es una revista de acceso abierto lo que significa que todo el contenido está a disposición de cualquier usuario o institución sin cargo alguno. Los usuarios pueden leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar, o realizar enlaces a los textos completos de esta revista sin pedir permiso previo al editor o al autor, siempre y cuando la fuente original sea referenciada. Para acervos y repositorios, se prefiere que la cobertura se realice mediante enlaces a la propia web de Psicothema. Nos parece que una apuesta decidida por la calidad es el mejor modo de servir a nuestros lectores, cuyas sugerencias siempre serán bienvenidas.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
