A Detailed Analyis of SIRS Versus SIRS-2 Critiques
- PDF / 322,573 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 5 Downloads / 194 Views
A Detailed Analyis of SIRS Versus SIRS-2 Critiques Richard Rogers 1
&
Sarah F. Velsor 1 & Margot M. Williams 1
Received: 31 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 May 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract This commentary reviews and critiques three recent SIRS/SIRS-2 comparison studies that reported strongly worded criticisms of the SIRS-2 and appeared to conclude that the original SIRS was far more accurate than its revision. Research designs and methodological considerations for replication research are outlined, and these comparison studies are systematically evaluated regarding their strengths and limitations. As a particularly concerning finding, SIRS/SIRS-2 comparison studies have routinely collapsed SIRS-2 classification categories (genuine, indeterminate-general, indeterminate-evaluate, and feigning) rather than following its well-defined decision rules, rendering comparison study results inapplicable to the SIRS-2 Decision Model. Relevant issues are discussed more generally so that scholars and practitioners may draw their own thoughtful conclusions about the psychometric strengths of the SIRS-2 and its utility for clinical and forensic practice. Keywords Structured interview of reported symptoms-2 . SIRS-2 . SIRS . Feigned mental disorders . Partial-criterion design . Known-group design
A cornerstone of forensic assessment is the inquiry into whether examinees are responding genuinely or instead engaging in an intentionally deceptive response style, such as malingering. In assessing the latter, the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) and its updated version, the SIRS-2 (Rogers, Sewell, & Gillard, 2010), are comprehensive interview measures to evaluate and classify response styles associated with intentional distortion of self-reported psychiatric symptoms. Both versions are comprised of identical items, but the SIRS-2 added an additional scale and—more importantly—the SIRS-2 Decision Model, for systematically classifying response styles via standardized rules. Given the rigor of its validation, the SIRS/SIRS-2 has been generally accepted as a standard for evaluating feigned mental disorders and is widely utilized by forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Rogers (2018b) summarized the SIRS/SIRS-2 criterion studies with well-known measures, including seven investigations with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 and four with the Personality Assessment Inventory. As evidence
* Richard Rogers [email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA
of its broad impact, a recent (4-16-20) Google Scholar search using its full name produced approximately 1440 results. Between 2013 and 2018, a trio of critiques was published in highly respected journals (Assessment, Psychological Assessment, and Law and Human Behavior), sharing a common theme regarding the alleged limitations of the SIRS-2 (Rogers et al., 2010) especially in comparison wit
Data Loading...
