1. Dismiss Notice
  2. Download free Tapatalk for iPhone or Tapatalk for Android for your phone and follow the SDN forums with push notifications.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Hey Texans—join us for a DFW meetup! Click here to learn more.
    Dismiss Notice

SIRS-II in clinical practice

Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by BuckeyeLove, Aug 20, 2015.

  1. BuckeyeLove

    BuckeyeLove Forensic Psychologist
    Psychologist 2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    169
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Afternoon all,
    I was hoping to get some feedback from some of you regarding your current test selections with regards to psychiatric symptom validity, and specifically if any of you all use the SIRS-II. As of my most recent lit review, there were some concerns regarding the II due to some data not being released from R. Rodgers' camp, increased indeterminates because of trying to cut down on f. positives, and limited cross validation (don't have citations handy at the moment). People seem to be rather dogmatic in their use of this instrument historically, which always concerns me. In my own practice I've found that it hasn't provided much incrementally, and I've found that it's actually become more burdensome to administer the thing as opposed to relying on other data points [M-FAST, TOMM, qualitatively atypical psychotic symptoms, comprehensive psychosocial with no history of mental illness]. However, I know a few board certified (ABFP) clinicians that are using this instrument with some regularity, and many that have stopped. Daubert issues are my concern here mainly. So....what are you guys using?
     
    Fan_of_Meehl likes this.
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. PSYDR

    PSYDR Psychologist
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    For non neuro SVTs, I use: PAI, MFAST, MMPI, a structured interview which I expand upon after administration,then either a speciality SVT (e.g., MENT) or a homemade forced choice. Throw in an IQ measure and an achievement test. I calculate the likelihood ratio of the 4. Then head off the defense that SVT failure was due to IQ or reading difficulties.
     

Share This Page