在法医精神病学样本中检验M-FAST项目水平特异性和替代评分程序。

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Maria Aparcero, Hyunjung Lee, Tiffany N Truong, David M Glassmire
{"title":"在法医精神病学样本中检验M-FAST项目水平特异性和替代评分程序。","authors":"Maria Aparcero, Hyunjung Lee, Tiffany N Truong, David M Glassmire","doi":"10.1037/pas0001508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recommended screening cutoff of ≥6 on the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) has been found to produce high false-positive rates in forensic populations. However, comprehensive testing of feigned psychopathology may be unfeasible, especially in resource- and time-limited forensic contexts. Using protocols from 172 forensic patients who were administered the M-FAST and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms/Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition, this study examined whether there were nonspecific or nondiscriminant M-FAST items. This study also explored whether the removal of poor performing items from the scoring could result in improved classification accuracy compared to the standard 25-item scoring procedure. Results showed that removing four to six items that were not specific or did not discriminate between presumed honest and presumed feigning patients reduced false-positive error rates while maintaining similar sensitivity levels to the 25-item M-FAST. Using a pool of 19 or 21 M-FAST items in the scoring could increase confidence in assertions about noncredible presentations (i.e., invalid test response) and reduce the need for unwarranted comprehensive testing among forensic patients with severe mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining M-FAST item-level specificity and alternative scoring procedures in a forensic psychiatric sample.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Aparcero, Hyunjung Lee, Tiffany N Truong, David M Glassmire\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The recommended screening cutoff of ≥6 on the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) has been found to produce high false-positive rates in forensic populations. However, comprehensive testing of feigned psychopathology may be unfeasible, especially in resource- and time-limited forensic contexts. Using protocols from 172 forensic patients who were administered the M-FAST and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms/Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition, this study examined whether there were nonspecific or nondiscriminant M-FAST items. This study also explored whether the removal of poor performing items from the scoring could result in improved classification accuracy compared to the standard 25-item scoring procedure. Results showed that removing four to six items that were not specific or did not discriminate between presumed honest and presumed feigning patients reduced false-positive error rates while maintaining similar sensitivity levels to the 25-item M-FAST. Using a pool of 19 or 21 M-FAST items in the scoring could increase confidence in assertions about noncredible presentations (i.e., invalid test response) and reduce the need for unwarranted comprehensive testing among forensic patients with severe mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001508\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001508","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

米勒法医症状评估测试(M-FAST)推荐的筛查截止值≥6已被发现在法医人群中产生高假阳性率。然而,对伪造的精神病理学进行全面的测试可能是不可行的,特别是在资源和时间有限的法医环境中。本研究使用来自172名法医患者的协议,这些患者接受了M-FAST和报告症状的结构化访谈/报告症状的结构化访谈-第二版,研究了是否存在非特异性或非歧视性的M-FAST项目。本研究还探讨了与标准的25项评分程序相比,从评分中删除表现不佳的项目是否可以提高分类准确性。结果表明,去除4到6个不具体或不区分推定诚实和推定假装患者的项目可以减少假阳性错误率,同时保持与25项M-FAST相似的敏感性水平。在评分中使用19或21个M-FAST项目可以增加对不可信陈述(即无效测试反应)断言的信心,并减少对患有严重精神疾病的法医患者进行无根据的综合测试的需要。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining M-FAST item-level specificity and alternative scoring procedures in a forensic psychiatric sample.

The recommended screening cutoff of ≥6 on the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) has been found to produce high false-positive rates in forensic populations. However, comprehensive testing of feigned psychopathology may be unfeasible, especially in resource- and time-limited forensic contexts. Using protocols from 172 forensic patients who were administered the M-FAST and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms/Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition, this study examined whether there were nonspecific or nondiscriminant M-FAST items. This study also explored whether the removal of poor performing items from the scoring could result in improved classification accuracy compared to the standard 25-item scoring procedure. Results showed that removing four to six items that were not specific or did not discriminate between presumed honest and presumed feigning patients reduced false-positive error rates while maintaining similar sensitivity levels to the 25-item M-FAST. Using a pool of 19 or 21 M-FAST items in the scoring could increase confidence in assertions about noncredible presentations (i.e., invalid test response) and reduce the need for unwarranted comprehensive testing among forensic patients with severe mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书