Symptom coaching and symptom validity tests: An analog study using the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology, Self-Report Symptom Inventory, and Inventory of Problems-29

Figures & data

Table 1. Age, English proficiency, and mental health check by group and condition.

Group	Condition	N	Age M (SD)	English proficiency M (SD)	Mental health check M (SD)
SIMS	Genuine	21	20.29 (2.41)	4.29 (.72)	3.48 (.87)
	Coached feigning	25	20.44 (1.89)	4.16 (.85)	3.68 (.85)
	Internet-coached feigning	18	20.50 (1.54)	4.50 (.78)	3.94 (.64)
	Total	64	20.41 (1.97)	4.30 (.79)	3.69 (.81)
	H(2)		1.10	2.28	3.32
	p		.577	.319	.189
	ε²		.01	.03	.05
SRSI	Genuine	24	20.17 (2.33)	4.38 (.57)	3.50 (1.10)
	Coached Feigning	18	21.39 (5.94)	4.17 (.98)	3.78(.65)
	Internet-Coached Feigning	24	21.04 (2.45)	4.42 (.65)	3.46 (.84)
	Total	66	20.82 (3.68)	4.33 (.73)	3.56 (.89)
	H(2)		2.48	.42	1.54
	p		.288	.810	.464
	ε²		.03	.006	.02
IOP-29	Genuine	26	20.77 (2.69)	4.00 (1.09)	3.08 (.93)
	Coached Feigning	21	21.29 (3.95)	4.10 (.70)	3.33 (1.06)
	Internet-Coached Feigning	16	21.31 (2.02)	4.38 (.50)	3.00 (.81)
	Total	63	21.08 (3.00)	4.13 (.85)	3.14 (.95)
	H(2)		1.68	1.14	1.07
	p		.431	.564	.585
	ε²		.002	.001	.01

Note: (1) Gray boxes provide differential statistics of all participants who responded to the corresponding measure; (2) H = Kruskall–Wallis test statistic, p = probability value, ε² = Epsilon squared effect size value; (3) Anchors for English proficiency and Mental Health: 1= “terrible/extremely bad” to 5 = “excellent/extremely good”.

Table 2. Motivation, clarity of instructions, and difficulty scores by group and condition.

Group	Condition	N	Motivation M (SD)	Clarity M (SD)	Difficulty M (SD)
SIMS	Genuine	21	4.14 (.65)	4.90 (.30)	1.86 (.72)
	Coached Feigning	25	3.88 (.67)	4.28 (.79)	2.44 (1.19)
	Internet-Coached Feigning	18	4.28 (.57)	4.56 (.51)	2.44 (1.25)
	Total	64	4.08 (.65)	4.56 (.64)	2.25 (1.10)
	H(2)		3.93	11.38	2.93
	p		.140	.003	.232
	ε²		.06	.18	.04
SRSI	Genuine	24	4.21 (.51)	4.92 (.28)	1.67 (.87)
	Coached Feigning	18	4.33 (.48)	4.61 (.50)	2.56 (1.04)
	Internet-Coached Feigning	24	4.17 (.48)	4.42 (.78)	2.25 (.95)
	Total	66	4.23 (.49)	4.65 (.59)	2.12 (1.00)
	H(2)		1.18	8.99	9.10
	p		.555	.011	.011
	ε²		.018	.14	.14
IOP-29	Genuine	26	4.00 (.63)	4.27 (1.01)	2.67 (.91)
	Coached Feigning	21	3.86 (.79)	4.33 (.79)	2.56 (.81)
	Internet-Coached Feigning	16	3.75 (.85)	3.88 (1.02)	2.56 (.81)
	Total	63	3.89 (.74)	4.19 (.95)	2.46 (.91)
	H(2)		.56	2.65	3.38
	p		.755	.266	.185
	ε²		.009	.04	.05

Note: (1) Gray boxes provide differential statistics of all participants who responded to the corresponding measure; (2) H = Kruskall–Wallis test statistic, p = probability value, ε² = Epsilon squared effect size value; (3) Anchors for Motivation and Clarity: 1= “extremely unmotivated/unclear/” to 5 = “extremely motivated/clear/”; (4) Anchors for Difficulty: 1= “extremely easy” to 5= “extremely difficult”.

Table 3. Minimum and maximum score on SIMS across conditions, and sensitivity and specificity for >16 cutoff SIMS.

		SIMS score		SIMS > 16
Condition	n	Minimum	Maximum	Sensitivity	Specificity
Genuine vs.	21	4	27	–	.71
Feigning conditions combined	43	6	40	.84	–
Coached feigning	25	15	42	.88	–
Internet-coached feigning	18	6	40	.78	–

Table 4. Minimum and maximum number of endorsed pseudosymptoms across conditions, and sensitivity and specificity for >6 and >9 cutoff SRSI.

		SRSI Pseudosymptoms scale
				>6		>9
Condition	n	Minimum	Maximum	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sensitivity	Specificity
Genuine vs.	24	0	13	–	.75	–	.83
Feigning conditions combined	42	1	50	.60	–	.42	–
Coached feigning	18	1	27	.67	–	.39	–
Internet-coached feigning	24	1	50	.54	–	.42	–

Table 5. Minimum and maximum of FDS scores for all conditions and sensitivity and specificity for FDS >.50.

		FDS score		FDS = .50
Condition	n	Min	Max	Sensitivity	Specificity
Genuine vs.	26	.02	.54	–	.96
Feigning conditions combined	37	.09	.97	.86	–
Coached feigning	21	.18	.97	.86	–
Internet-coached feigning	16	.09	.89	.88	–

Note: FDS = False Disorder Probability Score.