A total of 240 questionnaires (100%) were filled in by the raters. In most of the cases, SPs were not identified: in 70 of 114 SP cases, raters believed they were seeing a real patient. In 6 cases, raters were unsure. Real patients were correctly identified in 107 out of 119 cases. In 6 cases, real patients were misjudged as an SP, and in 6 cases raters were unsure. The statistical analysis shows a significant difference between SPs and real patients (ratings of “unsure” were omitted) in favor of the real-patients group (χ2=20,238; p <0.0001). Detection of SPs was 38.5% for the “borderline” video, 26.9% for depression-2, 23.1% for mania, 7.7% for depression-1, and 3.8% for schizophrenia. The SP character in the SP video “obsessive-compulsive disorder” was not exposed as such at all. The number of correct diagnoses was the same in both groups (104 each; 87.4%). The ANCOVA calculations based on intrarater normalized ratings show that SPs and real patients differed significantly on 4 items: Real patients were rated as more authentic (1.63 versus 2.05; p=0.001). SPs were rated significantly better for the items “Case is typical” (1.75 versus 1.99; p=0.033), “Video is catchy for students” (1.63 versus 1.86; p=0.046), and “Symptoms are obvious to students” (1.48 versus 1.88; p=0.001).