.79 demonstrated the usefulness of SIRS primary scales
for the accurate differentiation of feigned from clinical
honest profiles. A high level of accuracy was main-
tained across calibration and cross-validation samples.
Recently, a confirmatory factor analysis yielded strong
support for a two-factor model of the SIRS (i.e., spuri-
ous presentations and plausible presentations) that was
theoretically relevant to the assessment of malingering.
Forensic Applications
The SIRS is widely accepted as one of the best-vali-
dated measures of feigned mental disorders in clinical
and forensic settings. Its classification of malingering in
forensic settings is highly accurate. These classifications
are based on either (a) three or more primary scales in
the probable feigning range or (b) one or more primary
scales in the definite feigning range. The probable feign-
ing range was established so that it would include most
feigners (typically >75%) but very few genuine patients
(<10%). By using the established criterion (>3 scales in
the probable feigning range), very few genuine patients
were misclassified as feigners (i.e., 2.1% at 3 scales;
0.0% at > 4 scales). Scales in the definite feigning range
are set very high to minimize false positives.
Research by other investigators generally confirms
the accuracy of the SIRS and its low false-positive
rates. Ongoing research suggests that the SIRS pro-
vides useful data for civil-forensic applications such
as disability evaluations. As a caution, the initial data
indicate that its cut scores may not be useful for a sub-
set of inpatients with dissociative disorders and multi-
ple traumas beginning before adulthood.
Future Directions
Research is currently under way for validating a
Spanish-language SIRS. The SIRS was independently
translated by three bilingual psychologists. The com-
posite translation was back-translated by an indepen-
dent bilingual psychologist; minor discrepancies were
found for only 11.0% of the SIRS items. A revised
Spanish SIRS was subjected to further translations and
reviews. With the Spanish SIRS established, the com-
parability of the Spanish and English SIRS is currently
being tested with bilingual Hispanic patients.
Richard Rogers
See alsoForensic Assessment; Malingering
Further Readings
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (1997). Clinical assessment of malingering
and deception (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992).
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and
professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Rogers, R., Jackson, R. L., Sewell, K. W., & Salekin, K. L.
(2005). Detection strategies for malingering: A
confirmatory factor analysis of the SIRS. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 32,511–525.
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005).Fundamentals of
forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law.New
York: Springer.
SUBSTANCEABUSE AND
INTIMATEPARTNERVIOLENCE
Research indicates that substance abuse is a risk
marker for intimate partner violence (IPV). This entry
reviews the evidence for this association, possible
explanations for it, and implications for theory and
practice for professionals who work in this area.
Substance Abuse as a
Risk Marker for IPV
Studies using a variety of passive-observational
research designs have established that substance abuse
is a risk indicator for IPV. For example, population-based
studies as well as studies of clinic- or court-referred
groups, have examined rates of substance abuse in
people with and without a history of IPV victimization,
IPV perpetration, or IPV recidivism (i.e., repeated IPV
following an initial incident). According to narrative
and meta-analytic reviews of these studies, the associa-
tion between substance abuse and IPV is moderate or
even moderate-to-large in magnitude. About 20% to
50% of all incidents of IPV occur when one or both
partners have consumed and are under the influence of
alcohol or illegal drugs. Substance abuse increases the
odds of IPV perpetration or victimization by a factor of
about 2 to 4. The association tends to be strongest when
(a) the substances of abuse are alcohol, cocaine (in var-
ious forms), or heroin; (b) substance abuse is defined in
terms of problematic patterns of use, rather than fre-
quency of use or amount consumed; (c) IPV is defined
Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence——— 773
S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 773