The Role and Impact of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms in Court

• In Event: Poster Session

Abstract

The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers et al., 1992) is a 172-item rating scale designed to assess malingered psychiatric symptoms. Although lauded as the gold standard for detecting feigned mental illness (Boccaccini et al., 2006) and rated as the most frequently administered malingering instrument among forensic mental health evaluators (Archer et al., 2006), no research has systematically examined the role and impact of the SIRS within the legal system. To address this gap in the literature, the research team conducted a comprehensive case law survey (LexisNexis legal database) to identify U.S. court cases in which the SIRS was employed to evaluate a defendant/plaintiff. We identified 48 cases, 83% of which were criminal (the remaining were disability benefit cases). In only a slight majority of cases (59%), it was the prosecution who introduced the SIRS results. The admissibility of test results was challenged in a small subset of cases, focusing on claims that the instrument was inappropriate to use in that case. More frequently, the interpretation of the SIRS results was called into question. Additional results will be reported at the conference concerning rebuttal testimony and the impact of the SIRS testimony on the court’s decisions.

Authors

• Allison Rulseh, Texas A&M University

• Jessica Campbell, Texas A&M University

• Monique Raack, Texas A&M University

• Joshua Cook, Texas A&M University

• John F. Edens, Texas A&M University