MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386174776 · doi:10.22259/2638-5201.0202007

Content Validity of the Affective Disorder Subscale of the SIMS

2019· article· en· W4386174776 on OpenAlexaff
Zack Z. Cernovsky, James D. Mendonça, Jack Remo Ferrari, Gurpreet Sidhu, Varadaraj R. Velamoor, Stephan C. Mann, Lamidi Kola Oyewumi, Emmanuel Persad, Robbie Campbell, Michel A. Woodbury-Fariña

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Perception and Purchasing Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityLaurentian UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContent (measure theory)Content validityClinical psychologyPsychometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective:The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) is used widely to "detect malingering" of medical symptoms, even though there is no convincing evidence that it does differentiate malingerers from patients with legitimate symptoms.This study focuses on the Affective Disorder (AF) subscale of the SIMS. Method:In Study 1, ten raters (3 psychologists and 7 psychiatrists), each with more than 35 years of clinical experience, evaluated whether the AF items have any capacity to differentiate malingerers from legitimate patients.Study 2 evaluated responses to AF items by 16 survivors of high impact car accidents (6 men and 10 women; mean age 36.6 years, SD=12.3).Study 3 compared responses of these 16 patients to SIMS responses of 30 instructed malingerers and also to 47 medical patients who sustained only relatively minor injuries in car accidents (data from a 2014 study led by Capilla Ramírez with González Ordi).Results: All ten raters agreed that none of the AF items would be endorsed only by malingerers: on the contrary, all AF items list only legitimate symptoms of depression.The most frequently endorsed items by our 16 postaccident patients were those dealing with lack of energy (100% of the patients) and sleep problems (93.8%).87.5% of these 16 patients who survived high impact car collisions would be falsely classified by the AF as "malingering an affective disorder."These 16 patients obtained significantly higher AF scores and higher total SIMS score than the 47 Spanish patients who sustained only relatively minor injuries in their car accidents (t-tests, p<.001).The 16 patients did not differ significantly in their AF and total SIMS scores from the instructed malingerers recruited in the Spanish study (p>.05). Discussion and Conclusions:The AF subscale of the SIMS contains no items with reasonable capacity to differentiate malingerers from legitimate patients.The SIMS is a fallacious test: its use on real patients is iatrogenic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesSame topicConsumer Perception and Purchasing BehaviorFrench-language works237,207