Assessment of Response Bias in Forensic Contexts in the UK: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

The objective of this article was to systematically review the literature on self-report measures of response bias used by UK psychologists within forensic contexts over the period 2009–2019 and determine if the measures had adequate reliability and validity. The review involved a systematic search of published and unpublished literature. PRISMA was used to guide the search process. PICO was used to set inclusion/exclusion criteria. Published quality review models were applied to structure and score the quality review. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for quality using CASP. Quality scores mostly fell in the “moderate risk of bias” range. The majority of included studies focused on measures of socially desirable responding and impression management compared to malingering/overreporting. The PDS/BIDR was found to be the most frequently used self-report measure across prison, probation, and secure mental health settings, in contrast to measures used in other parts of the world. The PDS/BIDR has adequate validity and reliability, but there is a lack of normative data reported for UK forensic samples.

KEYWORDS:

• Response bias
• socially desirable responding
• systematic review
• PDS
• impression management
• malingering

Acknowledgments

The study formed part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Birmingham. Dr Sher would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of her doctoral supervisor, Dr Oliver.

Disclosure statement

The authors did not receive any financial support from any organization for the submitted work. The first author was a student at the University of Birmingham, and the study was undertaken as part of a practitioner doctorate. The second author works for the University of Birmingham and is the course director. The second author supervised the study as part of the doctorate.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.No funding was received for conducting this study.No funds, grants, or other support was received.The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or nonfinancial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.