SIRS-2
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS-2)
The SIRS-2 is a structured clinical interview designed to assess malingering or the deliberate exaggeration of psychiatric symptoms. Mainly used in forensic psychology and in complex clinical evaluations, it helps the psychologist analyze the credibility of reported symptoms, inconsistencies in the person's account, and atypical response styles. The tool explores, in particular, symptoms that are rare, improbable, absurd, blatant, selective, or inconsistent with clinical observation. Administered by a trained professional, the SIRS-2 provides several primary scales and supplementary indices for estimating the likelihood of a genuine or feigned presentation. It ideally fits into a multimethod approach including interview, observation, records, and other symptom validity tests.
- Number of questions
- 172 questions
- Estimated duration
- 35 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
- Target audience
- Adults
- Authors
- Richard Rogers, Kenneth W. Sewell, Nicholas D. Gillard (2010)
Scoring & interpretation
Scoring is carried out by the clinician according to the manual, based on the answers to 172 items administered in a structured interview. The answers feed into several primary scales and supplementary indices focused on rare, improbable, amplified, or inconsistent symptoms. Interpretation does not rely on a single total score, but on examining the scale profile, the clinical cutoffs, and the decision rules in the manual in order to estimate the likelihood of malingering, exaggeration, or a credible presentation. The results must always be integrated into the clinical and forensic context.
Usage
This tool isn't available on Mentaal. To use this questionnaire in your practice, you need a valid license. We invite you to send it directly from the publisher's website.
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?