Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: “Comparability of Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms–Second Edition (SIRS-2) classifications with external response bias criteria”: Correction to Tylicki et al. (2018).

The article below may contain offensive and/or incorrect content.

Reports an error in "Comparability of Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms–Second Edition (SIRS-2) classifications with external response bias criteria" by Jessica L. Tylicki, Dustin B. Wygant, Anthony M. Tarescavage, Richard I. Frederick, Elizabeth A. Tyner, Robert P. Granacher and Martin Sellbom (Psychological Assessment, 2018[Sep], Vol 30[9], 1144-1159). In the article there was a minor error in the note to Table 8 in which d? was defined as genuine vs. feigning. However, d? actually reflects the effect size for indeterminate-general vs. feigning. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-04164-001.) 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 (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)