Experts’ Failure to Consider the Negative Predictive Power of Symptom Validity Tests

Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Feigning symptoms distorts diagnostic evaluations. Therefore, dedicated tools known as symptom validity tests have been developed to help clinicians differentiate feigned from genuine symptom presentations. While a deviant SVT score is an indicator of a feigned symptom presentation, a non-deviant score provides support for the hypothesis that the symptom presentation is valid. Ideally, non-deviant SVT scores should temper suspicion of feigning even in cases where the patient fits the DSM’s stereotypical yet faulty profile of the “antisocial” feigner. Across three studies, we tested whether non-deviant SVT scores, indeed, have this corrective effect. We gave psychology students and clinical experts a case alluding to the DSM profile of feigning. In successive steps, they received information about the case, among which non-deviant SVT outcomes. After each step, participants rated how strongly they suspected feigning and how confident they were about their judgment. Both students and experts showed suspicion rates around the midpoint of the scale and did not respond to non-deviant SVT outcomes with lowered suspicion rates. In Study 4, we educated participants about the shortcomings of the DSM’s antisocial typology of feigning and the importance of the negative predictive power of SVTs, after which they processed the case information. Judgments remained roughly similar to those in Studies 1–3. Taken together, our findings suggest that students and experts alike have difficulties understanding that non-deviant scores on SVTs reduce the probability of feigning as a correct differential diagnosis.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

External Validity: Is There Still a Problem?Alexandre Marcellesi - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1308-1317.
Have the experts been weighed, measured, and found wanting?Bryan Caplan - 2007 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 19 (1):81-91.
Construct validity in psychological tests – the case of implicit social cognition.Uljana Feest - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (1):1-24.
Buddhist Generosity: Its Conceptual Model and Empirical Tests.Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs - 2016 - Archive for the Psychology of Religion 38 (3):316-344.
O mocy predykcyjnej hipotez.Anna Jedynak - 2007 - Filozofia Nauki 3.
Predictive mind, cognition, and chess.J. Shand - 2014 - Analysis 74 (2):244-249.
The factors of speed and power in tests of intelligence.F. S. Freeman - 1931 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 14 (1):83.
The Power of Nothingness.Daniel Colucciello Barber - 2011 - Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy/Revue canadienne de philosophie continentale 15 (1):49-71.
Predictive perceptual systems.Nico Orlandi - 2018 - Synthese 195 (6):2367-2386.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-04-09

Downloads
4 (#1,556,099)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How Mental Systems Believe.Daniel T. Gilbert - 1991 - American Psychologist 46 (2):107-119.

Add more references