![]() 2003 327: 557–560.Īhmadi K, Lashani Z, Afzali MH, Tavalaie SA, Mirzaee J. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. 2001.īorenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. A meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). 2015.ĭetullio D, Messer SC, Kennedy TD, Millen DH. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). International Journal of Selection and Assessment. random effects meta‐analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. 2001.īorenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test: Professional Manual. European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. Meta-analytic Re-assessment of the Validity of Miller Forensic Assessment Test for Detection of Malingering. As a screening instrument, the results here show that the M-FAST cut-off is operating adequately overall and negate the conclusions of. An examinee is never to be designating as feigning or malingering psychiatric symptoms based on only a positive M-FAST result. The M-FAST was designed to be a screener to detect potential feigning of psychiatric symptoms. ![]() ![]() Unlike the CIs, the estimated distributions of true specificity values for the two subgroups overlapped, which suggests there could be scenarios when these subgroups share the same true specificity value. On average, specificity values for clinical comparison (k = 15) groups (i.e., 0.80, 95% CI ) were lower than specificity values for non-clinical comparison (k = 11) groups (i.e., 0.96, 95% CI ). Thus, there could be methodological scenarios when the M-FAST cut-off may not operate efficiently.Īverage specificity values for the M-FAST cut-off were moderated by one variable: the comparison group. ![]() Overall, the average sensitivity of the M-FAST cut-off was estimated to be 0.87, 95% CI, and 80% of true sensitivity values were estimated to range from 0.63 to 0.96. Therefore, sensitivity values were pooled across all studies (k = 25) to provide an overall estimate. No moderator substantively influenced sensitivity values. The analyses here corrected the problems associated with. Reference presented pooled data for the specificity of the M-FAST cut-off, but ignored or excluded data based on poor justifications and used questionable analytic methods.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |