Abstract
The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd Edition (SIRS-2; Rogers et al. in Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), 2nd Edition, Professional Manual, 2010), is a revised version of the SIRS, a measure for assessing feigned psychiatric symptoms. Three independent studies (i.e., Green et al. in Assessment, 20, 210-218, 2013; Tarescavage & Glassmire in Law and Human Behavior, 40, 488-502, 2016; Tylicki et al. in Psychological Assessment, 30, 1144-1159, 2018) compared the utility of the original SIRS to the SIRS-2 with results showing that the SIRS-2 scoring algorithm produces a significant decrease in sensitivity to feigning among forensic evaluees with a reduction in false positive predictions. Rogers et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 275-283, 2020) published a critical analysis of these three comparison studies within the context of eight "flaws" of feigning research designs that did not consider the full context of the studies. The purpose of this paper is to assist clinicians and researchers in evaluating research comparing the SIRS and SIRS-2. First, we review the development of the SIRS-2 and the test's initial concerns raised by Rubenzer (Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 273-286, 2010) and DeClue (Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 3, 1-18, 2011). Next, we provide a summary of key findings of the three comparison studies and then examine each one in terms of the eight "flaws" identified by Rogers et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 275-283, 2020). Recommendations are offered for practitioners considering use of the SIRS-2. We ultimately conclude that the three SIRS versus SIRS-2 studies are best understood as (1) independent investigations from a range of relevant forensic settings, that (2) underwent rigorous peer review at highly respected journals, and (3) in spite of their limitations, provided strong, converging evidence of the limitations of the SIRS-2 in comparison to the SIRS.