| Given the detrimental impact of malingering, many resources have been utilized in identifying various instruments that successfully detect the phenomena (Rogers & Bender, 2013). The Inventory of Problems (IOP; Viglione & Landis, 1994; Viglione, Giromini, & Landis, 2016; Viglione, Landis, Giromini, McCullaugh, O'Brien, Pizitz, & Wood, unpublished manuscript) is a measure that consolidates multiple deception detection strategies into a single measure by providing the empirical probability of malingering for a range of syndromes, including PTSD. Very few studies have examined methods designed to specifically detect feigned combat-related PTSD. The assessment of PTSD is complicated by the high rate of false-positive and false-negative rates of malingering, and the reliance on self-report of symptoms (Resnick, 2003), which can be easily obtained from numerous sources. The current study aims to evaluate the convergent, discriminative, and incremental validity of the IOP and IOP-29 to establish the measures as reliable for the detection of feigned combat-related PTSD. The IOP and IOP-29 will be administered alongside the Trauma Symptom Inventory-2 (TSI-2; Briere, 2011) and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996). The measures will be administered to a psychiatric control group consisting of combat veterans that endorse a history of combat PTSD-related symptoms. The simulator group will consist of combat veterans who deny a history of PTSD-related symptoms. Simulators were provided with a role indication vignette that provided them with the common symptoms of PTSD and instructed them to respond to the measures as someone with PTSD utilizing their own combat experience as reference. Results of the study revealed mixed findings. The IOP and IOP-29 demonstrated convergent validity with the TOMM and IOP exhibiting the greatest classification accuracy between the patient and simulator groups. Unfortunately, the TSI-2 ATR scale performed poorly in the study and did not serve as an adequate comparison measure to examine further validity of the IOP. |
