Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: Comparability of Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms–Second Edition (SIRS-2) classifications with external response bias criteria.

The article below may contain offensive and/or incorrect content.

Rogers, Sewell, and Gillard (2010) released a revised version of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992), the SIRS-2, which introduced several new scales, indices, and a new classification model with the overall goal of improving its classification of genuine versus feigned presentations. Since the release of the SIRS-2, several concerns have been raised regarding the quality of the SIRS-2 development and validation samples and the method used to calculate classification accuracy estimates. To further explore issues related to the clinical utility of the SIRS-2, the current study examined associations of the SIRS and SIRS-2 with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) validity scales in separate samples of disability claimants and criminal defendants. Results indicate that the SIRS-2 reduced the number of feigning classifications. Additional analyses suggest that the Modified Total Index and Supplementary Scale Index do not assess the test-taking strategy that Rogers and colleagues (2010) intended the indices to capture. External data indicates that evaluees reclassified on the SIRS-2 in nonfeigning categories exhibited feigned symptoms of psychopathology. Indeed, we found that SIRS-identified feigners showed significant evidence of overreporting on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2–Restructured Form validity scales, regardless of their SIRS-2 classification. The current study highlights the overall weakness in clinical utility of the SIRS-2. Implications of these results for both clinical and forensic settings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)