Psikolojide olumsuz yanıt yanlılığı, temaruz ve belirti geçerliliği: Türkiye odaklı bir gözden geçirme
Negative response bias, malingering, and symptom validity in psychology: A Türkiye focusedreview

Summary/Abstract: The literature suggests that individuals undergoing psychological and/or neuropsychological assessments or referred for such assessments in certain contexts (e.g., medicolegal), may not always be honest about their reported problems or symptoms. Accordingly, individuals, particularly in the case of subjective self-reports, may exhibit a response style that biases or even invalidates assessment results based on a number of factors. These factors may include the nature of the questions, the context of the test, the mood of the individual during the assessment process, and/or the motive to obtain a benefit. For example, a response style defined as response bias, which is intended to distort assessment results, may involve some individuals presenting a situation as better than it actually is (positive response bias) and others presenting it as worse than it actually is (negative response bias). There may be internal (e.g., psychological benefit) and/or external (e.g., financial benefit) incentives behind this. Intentionally exaggerating or fabricating one's own psychological and/or physical symptoms in order to gain benefits motivated by an obvious external incentive is also a response style and is defined in the literature as malingering. In this context, symptom validity is a concept that refers to the accuracy of the symptoms reported by individuals (e.g., through selfreport). In light of the above findings, this review is based on the international literature on response bias, malingering, and symptom validity, as well as studies conducted in Türkiye, targeting the Turkish population, or written in Turkish. In this context, the definition of malingering in the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), criticisms of the DSM definition, prevalence rates, consequences of detection failures, alternative detection systems, symptom validity assessment, recommended objective psychometric test types, and recent findings and developments in general were reviewed. Recommendations are made in light of the findings.

• Details
• Contents