RESUMEN
In August 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and the Levant (ISIL) brutally attacked the Yazidi people and occupied Sinjar and other villages in Northern Iraq. The massacre of Yazidis that began in August 2014 was declared by the United Nations as genocide. To gain a better understanding and raise awareness of these atrocities, we conducted a qualitative, phenomenological study with 35 Yazidis, who survived the genocide. The aim of the study was to elucidate the Yazidis' processing of the genocide and how it affects their psychological functioning. Coding and theming were the methods used to categorize, bring meaning and identity to Yazidis'genocidal experiences. The interviews took place between April and June 2019. Data analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that Yazidis, who survived the genocide of 2014, commonly experienced 11 themes related to hopelessness, fear, loss, grief, distrust, change, advocacy, optimism, shock, intrusive memories, and guilt. Results from this study reveal the vulnerabilities of ethnic minorities at risk of being abducted, killed, raped, and displaced. Moreover, the inherent risk of future genocides is illustrated through the experiences shared by the Yazidis.
RESUMEN
The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) is a screening instrument created to assess for potential malingering. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the extent to which the M-FAST total score can differentiate overreporters from comparison groups. Research reports were located through searching databases (e.g., PsycINFO) and the M-FAST published manual. A random-effects model was used with Hedges' g as the effect size to represent the difference between the overreporting and comparison groups' M-FAST total scores. Twenty-one research reports were included in the meta-analysis, providing 25 effect sizes with nonoverlapping samples. A very large effect size was observed (g = 2.26, 95% CI [1.91, 2.62]), indicating a substantial difference on the M-FAST total score between the two groups. Moderator analyses were conducted to identify characteristics that might explain effect size variability. A significant difference was found between effect sizes that were part of the M-FAST development (g = 3.82, 95% CI [2.82, 4.82]) and effect sizes independent from its development (g = 2.03, 95% CI [1.70, 2.36]). Using 12 research reports, random-effects analyses found an average sensitivity of 0.83 and average specificity of 0.85 for the M-FAST total score at the cut-off of ≥ 6. Based on the findings, research performed independently from the M-FAST development should be consulted when evaluating the validity of the total score interpretations. Because it is a screening instrument, an examinee should not be classified as malingering from the results of the M-FAST total score alone. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
