ABSTRACT Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic has heightened concerns about malingering, particularly given its recognition as an occupational disease in several regions. This study evaluated the applicability of the Verifiability Approach (VA), a credibility assessment tool based on the principle that liars provide fewer verifiable details than truth tellers, to distinguish between honest reporters and malingerers of COVID‐19 infection. Methods A total of 410 participants (51.5% female) completed an online survey via Google Forms. Participants who reported previous COVID‐19 infection ( n = 205) were assigned to either an informed honest ( n = 104) or not‐informed honest ( n = 101) group, while those without prior infection ( n = 205) were assigned to informed malingerers ( n = 105) or not‐informed malingerers ( n = 100) conditions. Participants in the informed condition were briefed about the VA before writing their reports. Results: Informed honest participants provided significantly more verifiable details than both uninformed honest participants and malingerers. The number of verifiable details and the ratio of verifiable details to total details were strongly associated with honesty when participants were informed about the VA, indicating that the information Protocol enhanced diagnostic accuracy. Perceived success was higher among honest participants, particularly those informed about the VA. No significant effects emerged for reported long COVID or fabricated symptoms, likely due to limited variability and low symptom familiarity. Conclusion: The findings support the VA's validity in distinguishing genuine from feigned symptom reports in health‐related contexts. However, the fully online design, lack of factual verification, and potential for misreporting represent key limitations. Future studies should replicate these results in face‐to‐face or ecologically valid settings and extend the VA framework to the study of symptom dissimulation.
Ribatti et al. (Sun,) studied this question.