Further Readings
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). Manual for the
Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Borum, R., & Douglas, K. (2003). New directions in violence
risk assessment. Psychiatric Times, 20(3), 102–103.
Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). A practical guide to
assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles.
New York: Guilford Press.STRUCTUREDINTERVIEW OF
REPORTEDSYMPTOMS(SIRS)
The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
(SIRS) is a fully structured interview that is designed
to assess feigned mental disorders and related
response styles. Each of its eight primary scales was
constructed to evaluate well-established detection
strategies for differentiating between malingered and
genuine psychopathology. These primary scales con-
sist of Rare Symptoms (RS), Symptom Combinations
(SC), Improbable and Absurd Symptoms (IA), Blatant
Symptoms (BL), Subtle Symptoms (SU), Selectivity
of Symptoms (SEL), Severity of Symptoms (SEV),
and Reported Versus Observed Symptoms (RO).Description and Development
The initial development of the SIRS was based on an
exhaustive review of potential detection strategies for
feigned mental disorders. SIRS scales were developed
based on the likely effectiveness of the underlying
detection strategy and the adaptability of each strategy
to interview-based assessments. Final item selection
was based on independent judgments by eight experts
in malingering and was subsequently refined to
improve scale homogeneity. The SIRS is composed of
173 items that are organized by eight primary and five
supplementary scales.
The original validation of the SIRS combined sam-
ples from multiple studies to form four groups: 100
inpatients and outpatients, 97 controls from commu-
nity, correctional, and college settings, 170 simulators
including coached and uncoached participants, and 36
likely malingerers from forensic settings. Subsequent
validation research has included clinical and correc-
tional samples with an additional 255 participants.Reliability
Internal consistencies (alpha coefficients) for SIRS
primary scales were excellent: They ranged from .77 to
.92, with a mean alpha of .86. The reliability of indi-
vidual scores was examined via standard errors of
measurement (SEM). The SEMs were low for both
clinical and control samples, indicating high reliability
for individual scores. A central issue for the SIRS was
its interrater reliability. These estimates were impres-
sive, ranging from .89 to 1.00. The median reliability
was .99, which represents almost perfect agreement.Validity
SIRS validation relied on a combination of simulation
designs and known-group comparisons. The simula-
tion design capitalizes on internal validity in its use of
analog research with clinical comparison samples. In
contrast, known-group comparisons provide
unmatched external validity in their use of individuals
from actual clinical-forensic settings who were inde-
pendently evaluated as malingering by established
experts. For the assessment of malingering, conver-
gent results from simulation and known-group studies
provided the strongest evidence of SIRS validity.
A major focal point of the SIRS is its discriminant
validity. The critical issue is whether each of the primary
scales systematically differentiates between genuine and
feigned psychopathology. Combining across studies,
effect sizes can be computed for the critical distinctions
(a) simulators versus clinical honest and (b) suspected
malingerers versus clinical honest. For simulators,
Cohen’s d’s were very large: They ranged from 1.40
(SU) to 2.31 (RS) with an average dof 1.74. Cohen’s d’s
were also very large for suspected malingerers but
showed less variability: 1.20 (IA) to 1.98 (SEL). The
average effect size for malingerers was identical to that
of simulators (d=1.74). These combined data provide
very strong evidence of discriminant validity.
Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the
SIRS with other measures of feigned mental disorders.
The SIRS evidenced robust correlations with MMPI–2
validity scales. For example, the SIRS primary scales
are strongly correlated with Scale F (r’s from .71 to
.80). As also expected, they are negatively correlated
with Scale K (Mr =−.35), a measure of defensiveness.
Construct validity was examined via discriminant
analysis and factor analysis. A two-stage, stepwise
discriminant analysis with a canonical correlation of772 ———Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 772