Tackling deceptive responding during eligibility via content-knowledge questionnaires
Ricardo Marcos Pautassi,Angelina Pilatti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2020.1712723
2020-01-21
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Abstract:Deceptive responding from participants has troubled social research for years. This problem becomes particularly conspicuous when the topic under analysis involves relatively private issues, such as sexual behavior or drug use, or when there are incentives, monetary or otherwise, to participate. Illustrating this problem, an intriguing study surveyed 100 participants who had regularly served as volunteers in clinical trials and found that 25% to 33% had either exaggerated or fabricated symptoms to facilitate their participation and, perhaps more worrisome, 75% had concealed information likely to result in their exclusion from the study (<span class="ref-lnk"><a href="#">1</a><span class="ref-overlay scrollable-ref rs_skip"> <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Devine <span class="NLM_given-names">EG</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Waters <span class="NLM_given-names">ME</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Putnam <span class="NLM_given-names">M</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Surprise <span class="NLM_given-names">C</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">O'Malley <span class="NLM_given-names">K</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Richambault <span class="NLM_given-names">C</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Fishman <span class="NLM_given-names">RL</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Knapp <span class="NLM_given-names">CM</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Patterson <span class="NLM_given-names">EH</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Sarid-Segal <span class="NLM_given-names">O</span></span>, et al. <span class="NLM_article-title">Concealment and fabrication by experienced research subjects</span>. Clin Trials. <span class="NLM_year">2013</span>;10:<span class="NLM_fpage">935</span>–<span class="NLM_lpage">48</span>.<span class="ref-links"><span class="xlinks-container"><a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0001&dbid=16&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=10.1177%2F1740774513492917">[Crossref]</a>, <a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0001&dbid=8&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=23867223">[PubMed]</a>, <a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0001&dbid=128&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=000328676700012">[Web of Science ®]</a></span> <span class="googleScholar-container">, <a class="google-scholar" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2013&pages=935-48&author=EG+Devine&author=ME+Waters&author=M+Putnam&author=C+Surprise&author=K+O%E2%80%99Malley&author=C+Richambault&author=RL+Fishman&author=CM+Knapp&author=EH+Patterson&author=O+Sarid-Segal&title=Concealment+and+fabrication+by+experienced+research+subjects">[Google Scholar]</a></span></span></span></span>). A recent review claims that overall deception rate among healthy volunteers ranges from 3% to 25% (<span class="ref-lnk"><a href="#">2</a><span class="ref-overlay scrollable-ref rs_skip"> <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Lee <span class="NLM_given-names">CP</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Holmes <span class="NLM_given-names">T</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Neri <span class="NLM_given-names">E</span></span>, <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">Kushida <span class="NLM_given-names">CA.</span></span> <span class="NLM_article-title">Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants</span>. Contemp Clin Trials. <span class="NLM_year">2018</span>;72:<span class="NLM_fpage">146</span>–<span class="NLM_lpage">57</span>. doi:<span class="NLM_pub-id">10.1016/j.cct.2018.08.002</span>.<span class="ref-links"><span class="xlinks-container"><a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0002&dbid=16&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=10.1016%2Fj.cct.2018.08.002">[Crossref]</a>, <a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0002&dbid=8&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=30138717">[PubMed]</a>, <a href="/servlet/linkout?suffix=CIT0002&dbid=128&doi=10.1080%2F00952990.2020.1712723&key=000446143800017">[Web of Science ®]</a></span> <span class="googleScholar-container">, <a class="google-scholar" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2018&pages=146-57&author=CP+Lee&author=T+Holmes&author=E+Neri&author=CA.+Kushida&title=Deception+in+clinical+trials+and+its+impact+on+recruitment+and+adherence+of+study+participants">[Google Scholar]</a></span></span></span></span>). Almost every piece of literature on deceptive responding indicates the need to improve the screening and eligibility techniques to avoid misrepresentation of own's behavior (<span class="ref-lnk"><a href="#">3</a><span class="ref-overlay scrollable-ref rs_skip"> <span class="hlFld-ContribAuthor">McCaul <span class="NLM_given-names">ME</span></span>, <span clas <p>-Abstract Truncated-</p>
substance abuse,psychology, clinical