APPIC Integrated Report Question

[lbergeson014]

Hello hello,

I am currently completing an assessment practicum at a correctional facility. I am in a situation where I have administered two tests of effort/malingering (SIRS-2 and M-FAST), but my client will be transferred due to security concerns. Would this count as an integrative report? Both had to be verbally read to client.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I would not consider that an integrated report, personally, and I thought APPIC generally characterized an integrated report as having instruments from multiple categories. These would only fit the category of symptom validity.

 

[beginner2011]

I would not consider that an integrated report, personally, and I thought APPIC generally characterized an integrated report as having instruments from multiple categories. These would only fit the category of symptom validity.

I think it's two or more tests from one or more categories.

The definition of an integrated psychological testing report is a report that includes a review of history, results of an interview and at least two psychological tests from one or more of the following categories: personality measures, intellectual tests, cognitive tests, and neuropsychological tests.

Integrated Report

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, Postdoc Interns, Psychology Internships, Psych Internship Matching - APPIC

www.appic.org

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it's two or more tests from one or more categories.

The definition of an integrated psychological testing report is a report that includes a review of history, results of an interview and at least two psychological tests from one or more of the following categories: personality measures, intellectual tests, cognitive tests, and neuropsychological tests.

Integrated Report

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, Postdoc Interns, Psychology Internships, Psych Internship Matching - APPIC

www.appic.org

Yes but

"do not count checklists or symptom measures,"

The SIRS is mostly a symptom checklist with SVT built in, with the MFAST being a largely redundant measure here. Just doesn't seem to be much variance here. Some may be ok with this counting, but if this is what someone is counting for most of their integrated report counts, it looks like you're padding the stats. For comprehensive assessments, you really need more. This is especially important as in recent years, true assessment experience has been sorely lacking in applicant packets. Which is unfortunate, as applicants are not differentiating their skills from midlevel training.

 

[Indiana_Jane]

Just finished the match process. I agree that this would not count as an integrated report.

 

[lbergeson014]

Thanks, everyone! HOPEFULLY I'll be able to see him one more time to complete two objective assessments.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Also be prepared to defend using the SIRS-2.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also be prepared to defend using the SIRS-2.

Is this mostly because it really does not detect feigned psychopathology, particularly in forensic samples, or something else? Not a measure I use, or ever consider using, so I may not be as up to date on current controversies.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Is this mostly because it really does not detect feigned psychopathology, particularly in forensic samples, or something else? Not a measure I use, or ever consider using, so I may not be as up to date on current controversies.

So many end up in the indeterminate range and it doesn't actually end up being incrementally helpful. M-FAST often yields more helpful data given their PPP rates, in conjunction with records and interview. More than anything though id be worried using any measure where the developer is continuing to claim proprietary rights over data, precluding cross validation.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Yes but

"do not count checklists or symptom measures,"

The SIRS is mostly a symptom checklist with SVT built in, with the MFAST being a largely redundant measure here. Just doesn't seem to be much variance here. Some may be ok with this counting, but if this is what someone is counting for most of their integrated report counts, it looks like you're padding the stats. For comprehensive assessments, you really need more. This is especially important as in recent years, true assessment experience has been sorely lacking in applicant packets. Which is unfortunate, as applicants are not differentiating their skills from midlevel training.

Am I missing something about the SIRS or are you confusing it with the SCID? SIRS is entirely an SVT. I've never used a SIRS as as a checklist with response style only being a secondary concern. I'm not trying to be contentious, I am just genuinely confused lol Has all my training been a lie? 🤣

I also wouldn't say that giving both a SIRS and M-FAST is redundant, though there is that possibility when M-FAST scores start to reach certain levels. In theory, the SIRS should be a more substantive measure. Recent research shows 100% concordance rates between certain M-FAST scores and determinations of feigning on the SIRS. In those cases, I think it would be redundant to slog through a SIRS.

The recent SIRS-2 controversy has to do with the Rogers camp wanting to reduce false positives through a new decision model. However, this resulted in pretty large decreases in sensitivity, meaning that many responders are now being classified into the indeterminate, or more concerningly, the genuine range. These are response sets that would've been classified as feigning on the SIRS, or elevated significantly on things like F-r or Fp-r. There was a recent Rogers rebuttal that has also turned this into a giant nerd rap battle.

 

[WisNeuro]

Definitely not confusing it with the SCID. It's primary purpose is as an SVT, yes. But it does that by looking at some actual common symptoms. So, it looks at absurd symptoms and possible magnification of common symptoms in some of it's scales. In the case of the OP there is still the problem that this is simply not a comprehensive assessment in terms of what one would conceptualize as an integrated report. Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more common that adequate genuine integrated reports in applicants are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Some programs seem fine abandoning the things that truly differentiate us from midlevels.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Definitely not confusing it with the SCID. It's primary purpose is as an SVT, yes. But it does that by looking at some actual common symptoms. So, it looks at absurd symptoms and possible magnification of common symptoms in some of it's scales. In the case of the OP there is still the problem that this is simply not a comprehensive assessment in terms of what one would conceptualize as an integrated report. Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more common that adequate genuine integrated reports in applicants are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Some programs seem fine abandoning the things that truly differentiate us from midlevels.

Ahh, I gotcha! Definitely agree that this wouldn't be considered a comprehensive assessment. It's astounding how many applicants are applying with minimal assessment knowledge. Heck, a lot of early career folks lack these skills as well. And many wonder why midlevel creep is increasing.