Table 3.

Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Responses to “Mike”

MaSP Item	M, SD	Qualitative Response Theme
SP appeared authentic.	1.6, 1.2	Withdrawal and/or physicality unrealistic & inconsistent w/quantity and last reported use;
SP could be a real patient.	1.6, 1.0	Patient too intoxicated to conduct assessment; Odd match between wife & Mike; Lack of ANY eye contact felt unauthentic;
SP was clearly role playing.*	1.9, 0.8	SP so realistic counselor forgot SP was an actor playing a role/excellent actor; Too much scratching; Not enough scratching;
SP appeared to withhold information unnecessarily.*	2.4, 1.0	SP more withholding than typical intoxicated patient;
SP stayed in his/her role the entire time.	1.3, 0.5	n/a
SP simulated physical complaints unrealistically*	2.3, 0.9	Withdrawal and/or physicality unrealistic & inconsistent w/quantity and last reported use;
SP’s appearance fit the role	1.6, 0.7	n/a
SP answered questions in a natural manner.	2.3, 1.3	Too withholding;
SP simulated psychological complaints realistically.	2.1, 1.1	Excellent actor/he balked at the idea of treatment with or without wife;

5-point, Likert scale with 1 = “Strongly Agree, 5 = “Strongly Disagree”

^*Reverse coded to conform to other items.