Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences

Document Type : Original Article(s)


1 Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Biomedical Engineering (Center of Excellence), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran


Background: A major problem with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) is its poor sensitivity for malingering detection in a group of people familiar with the test mechanism. This study aimed to evaluate the modification of UPSIT to detect anosmia malingering.
Methods: This was a pilot experimental study conducted in 2019 in Tehran. The participants were 60 healthy subjects classified into two groups of 30 people. The first group was requested to deliberately feign a negative result on the Iranian version of UPSIT, Iran Smell Identification Test (ISIT) (malingering group). The second group consisted of participants, who did not scratch the odorant part of ISIT during the tests (anosmia group). ISIT was modified in two steps. At each step, one incorrect option was deleted from the available choices. The number of each group’s answers, altered away from the correct choice, was then calculated and compared.
Results: The coached malingering group participants were able to feign anosmia in the original ISIT exam. In the modified ISIT, the number of answers changed from correct to wrong during the second stage (from three available choices to two choices) was significantly higher in the anosmia group (p <0.001). In the ROC analysis, the area under the curve was 0.92 (p <0.001). The cut-off of 4.5 for this test showed 93% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and 90% PPV and NPV.
Conclusion: The ISIT is not capable of detecting malingering in the coached participants, yet by deleting the choices step-by-step, the sensitivity and specificity of the test increased.


  1. Waller RJ. Fostering child and adolescent mental health in the classroom. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. 339 p.
  2. Rogers R. Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. 526 p.
  3. Ciofalo A, De Vincentiis M, Iannella G, Zambetti G, Giacomello P, Altissimi G, et al. Mild traumatic brain injury: evaluation of olfactory dysfunction and clinical-neurological characteristics. Brain Inj. 2018;32:550-6. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2018.1432074. PubMed PMID: 29446651.
  4. Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG, Moore-Gillon V, Shaman P, Mester AF, et al. Smell and taste disorders, a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117:519-28. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1991.01870170065015. PubMed PMID: 2021470.
  5. Fan LY, Kuo CL, Lirng JF, Shu CH. Investigation of prognostic factors for post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015;78:299-303. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2014.11.009. PubMed PMID: 25801491.
  6. Coelho DH, Costanzo RM. Posttraumatic olfactory dysfunction. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2016;43:137-43. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2015.08.006. PubMed PMID: 26441369.
  7. Kim SW, Kim DW, Yim YJ, Rhee CS, Lee CH, Kim JW. Cortical magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with posttraumatic olfactory dysfunction: comparison according to the interval between trauma and evaluation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;7:188-92. doi: 10.3342/ceo.2014.7.3.188. PubMed PMID: 25177434; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4135154.
  8. Doty RL, Frye RE, Agrawal U. Internal consistency reliability of the fractionated and whole University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Percept Psychophys. 1989;45:381-4. doi: 10.3758/bf03210709. PubMed PMID: 2726398.
  9. Doty RL. Olfactory dysfunction and its measurement in the clinic. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;1:28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2015.09.007. PubMed PMID: 29204537; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5698508.
  10. Boesveldt S, Postma EM, Boak D, Welge-Luessen A, Schopf V, Mainland JD, et al. Anosmia-A Clinical Review. Chem Senses. 2017;42:513-23. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjx025. PubMed PMID: 28531300; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5863566.
  11. Sabalan ST [Internet]. Iran Smell Identification Test, Forensics version 2016. [cited 2020 25 May]. Available from: Persian.
  12. Jalali MM, Faghih Habibi A, Ghorbani Samin M. Predictors of Olfactory Impairment among Northern Iranian Population. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;32:271-9. doi: 10.22038/ijorl.2019.40358.2325. PubMed PMID: 33014903; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7515626.
  13. Bailie JM, Rybalsky KA, Griffith NM, Horning SM, Gesteland RC, Frank RA. The susceptibility of olfactory measures to malingering. Chemosensory Perception. 2008;1:168-73. doi: 10.1007/s12078-008-9011-7.
  14. Taherkhani S, Moztarzadeh F, Seraj JM, Nazari SSH, Taherkhani F, Gharehdaghi J, et al. Iran smell identification test (Iran-SIT): A modified version of the university of pennsylvania smell identification test (UPSIT) for Iranian population. Chemosensory perception. 2015;8:183-91. doi: 10.1007/s12078-015-9192-9.
  15. Roberts RJ, Sheehan W, Thurber S, Roberts MA. Functional neuro-imaging and post-traumatic olfactory impairment. Indian J Psychol Med. 2010;32:93-8. doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.78504. PubMed PMID: 21716782; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3122553.
  16. Bonanni E, Borghetti D, Fabbrini M, Maestri M, Cignoni F, Sartucci F, et al. Quantitative EEG analysis in post-traumatic anosmia. Brain Res Bull. 2006;71:69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.08.004. PubMed PMID: 17113930.
  17. Yousem DM, Geckle RJ, Bilker WB, McKeown DA, Doty RL. Posttraumatic olfactory dysfunction: MR and clinical evaluation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17:1171-9. PubMed PMID: 8791933; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8338600.
  18. Frank RA, Gesteland RC, Bailie J, Rybalsky K, Seiden A, Dulay MF. Characterization of the sniff magnitude test. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:532-6. doi: 10.1001/archotol.132.5.532. PubMed PMID: 16702570.
  19. Reden J, Draf C, Frank RA, Hummel T. Comparison of clinical tests of olfactory function. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:927-31. doi: 10.1007/s00405-015-3682-x. PubMed PMID: 26050222.
  20. Pouraghaei S, Samadirad B, Baybordi E, Seyffarshad A, Seraj JM, Kolahi F, et al. A Comparative Study of Iranian Smell Identification Test (Iran-SIT) and Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Results in Discrimination of Anosmia and Malingering in Forensic Cases. General Surgery. 2018;2:1-8. doi: 10.18282/gs.v2i1.84.
  21. Mehdizade J, Saedi B, Fotouhi R, Safavi A. A novel test to differentiate anosmic malingerers from actually anosmic patients. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:485-8. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3812. PubMed PMID: 23232200.
  22. Doty RL, Genow A, Hummel T. Scratch density differentiates microsmic from normosmic and anosmic subjects on the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Percept Mot Skills. 1998;86:211-6. doi: 10.2466/pms.1998.86.1.211. PubMed PMID: 9530735.
  23. Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Jr. Detecting malingerers by means of response-sequence analysis. Percept Psychophys. 2004;66:1190-201. doi: 10.3758/bf03196845. PubMed PMID: 15751475.