Abstract
This commentary reviews and critiques three recent SIRS/SIRS-2 comparison studies that reported strongly worded criticisms of the SIRS-2 and appeared to conclude that the original SIRS was far more accurate than its revision. Research designs and methodological considerations for replication research are outlined, and these comparison studies are systematically evaluated regarding their strengths and limitations. As a particularly concerning finding, SIRS/SIRS-2 comparison studies have routinely collapsed SIRS-2 classification categories (genuine, indeterminate-general, indeterminate-evaluate, and feigning) rather than following its well-defined decision rules, rendering comparison study results inapplicable to the SIRS-2 Decision Model. Relevant issues are discussed more generally so that scholars and practitioners may draw their own thoughtful conclusions about the psychometric strengths of the SIRS-2 and its utility for clinical and forensic practice.