Comparability of Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition (SIRS-2) classifications with external response bias criteria.

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

Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand the decision-making process, and the role of research evidence within it, across sectors other than health, as interventions delivered within these sectors may have substantial impacts on public health and health inequalities. METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative evidence. Twenty-eight databases covering a range of sectors were searched. Studies were eligible if they included local decision-makers in a policy field relevant to the social determinants of health (including housing, transport, urban planning and regeneration, crime, licensing or trading standards), were conducted in a high-income country, and reported primary qualitative data on perceptions of research evidence. Study quality was assessed and a thematic synthesis undertaken. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, most using interview designs, and most focusing on planning or transport policy. Several factors are seen to influence decision-makers' views of evidence, including practical factors such as resources or organizational support; the credibility of the evidence; its relevance or applicability to practice; considerations of political support or feasibility; and legislative constraints. There are limited data on how evidence is used: it is sometimes used to not only support decision-making, but also to lend legitimacy to decisions that have already been made. CONCLUSION: Although cultures of evidence in non-health sectors are similar to those in health in some ways, there are some key differences, particularly as regards the political context of decision-making. Intersectoral public health research could benefit from taking into account non-health decision makers' needs and preferences, particularly around relevance and political feasibility.

Population-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse available review-level evidence on the effectiveness of population-level interventions in non-clinical settings to reduce alcohol consumption or related health or social harm. METHOD: Health, social policy and specialist review databases between 2002 and 2012 were searched for systematic reviews of the effectiveness of population-level alcohol interventions on consumption or alcohol-related health or social outcomes. Data were extracted on review research aim, inclusion criteria, outcome indicators, results, conclusions and limitations. Reviews were quality-assessed using AMSTAR criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted overall and by policy area. RESULTS: Fifty-two reviews were included from ten policy areas. There is good evidence for policies and interventions to limit alcohol sale availability, to reduce drink-driving, to increase alcohol price or taxation. There is mixed evidence for family- and community-level interventions, school-based interventions, and interventions in the alcohol server setting and the mass media. There is weak evidence for workplace interventions and for interventions targeting illicit alcohol sales. There is evidence of the ineffectiveness of interventions in higher education settings. CONCLUSION: There is a pattern of support from the evidence base for regulatory or statutory enforcement interventions over local non-regulatory approaches targeting specific population groups.

Rates of computational errors for scoring the SIRS primary scales.

We entered item scores for the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1991) into a spreadsheet and compared computed scores with those hand-tallied by examiners. We found that about 35% of the tests had at least 1 scoring error. Of SIRS scale scores tallied by examiners, about 8% were incorrectly summed. When the errors were corrected, only 1 SIRS classification was reclassified in the fourfold scheme used by the SIRS. We note that mistallied scores on psychological tests are common, and we review some strategies for reducing scale score errors on the SIRS.

Criminal-thinking styles and illegal behavior among college students: validation of the PICTS.

The present study examined the relation of self-reported criminal-thinking styles and self-reported illegal behavior among college students. Participants were 177 male and 216 female (N=393) undergraduate students. Participants were divided by gender and further classified into four groups of self-reported illegal behavior: control-status offenses, drug crimes, property crimes, and violent crimes against people. The psychological inventory of criminal-thinking styles (PICTS) (1) measured criminal-thinking patterns on eight scales. Results indicated that males who committed violent crimes against people endorsed significantly higher levels of distorted criminal-thinking patterns on all scales than the control-status offenses, and drug crimes groups. Interestingly, female participants who committed property crimes displayed six significantly elevated PICTS scales whereas females with violent crimes against people had significant elevations on only four of the criminal-thinking style scales. These results extend Walter's initial validation of the PICTS with incarcerated respondents to a non-incarcerated population and show potential use of the PICTS with other populations.