Utility of the Mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms Scale to detect symptom exaggeration: An analogue simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief self-report symptom checklists are often used to screen for postconcussional disorder (PCD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and are highly susceptible to symptom exaggeration. This study examined the utility of the five-item Mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms Scale (mBIAS) designed for use with the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) and the PTSD Checklist-Civilian (PCL-C). Participants were 85 Australian undergraduate students who completed a battery of self-report measures under one of three experimental conditions: control (i.e., honest responding, n = 24), feign PCD (n = 29), and feign PTSD (n = 32). Measures were the mBIAS, NSI, PCL-C, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), and the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Participants instructed to feign PTSD and PCD had significantly higher scores on the mBIAS, NSI, PCL-C, and MMPI-2-RF than did controls. Few differences were found between the feign PCD and feign PTSD groups, with the exception of scores on the NSI (feign PCD > feign PTSD) and PCL-C (feign PTSD > feign PCD). Optimal cutoff scores on the mBIAS of ≥8 and ≥6 were found to reflect "probable exaggeration" (sensitivity = .34; specificity = 1.0; positive predictive power, PPP = 1.0; negative predictive power, NPP = .74) and "possible exaggeration" (sensitivity = .72; specificity = .88; PPP = .76; NPP = .85), respectively. Findings provide preliminary support for the use of the mBIAS as a tool to detect symptom exaggeration when administering the NSI and PCL-C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".