Civil Forensic Psychology: Psychological Assessment in Civil Legal Cases

4 days ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Civil forensic psychology applies psychological science to disputes and decisions governed by civil law. Its central task is to answer a defined psycholegal question with reliable, relevant evidence: whether psychological injury is present and functionally significant, how a person's abilities relate to a particular decision, what an evaluation can say about parenting or vulnerability, or which psychological findings may help a tribunal understand a contested claim. The psychologist evaluates behavior, functioning, records, test results, competing explanations, and uncertainty. A court, agency, or other authorized decision-maker determines the legal outcome.

In civil litigation, the question is rarely simply whether someone has a mental health diagnosis. A diagnosis, an observed limitation, a temporal relationship, a legally compensable injury, and a causal finding are different propositions. Responsible evaluations make those distinctions visible. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology expressly cover legal, contractual, and administrative matters, while the peer-reviewed discussion by Foote, Goodman-Delahunty, and Young details the specific demands of civil psychological-injury litigation.

What Is Civil Forensic Psychology?

Civil forensic psychology is the professional use of psychological knowledge in civil legal proceedings and closely related administrative or contractual disputes. The word forensic identifies the legally relevant purpose of the work. Civil indicates the type of legal matter. Psychologists may assess people, evaluate research, analyze records, prepare reports, offer consultation, or testify within their competence and appointment.

A civil forensic evaluation starts with a referral question that can be translated into observable psychological domains. For example, a disputed psychological-injury claim may require assessment of symptoms before and after an alleged event, daily functioning, treatment history, consistency across information sources, and alternative explanations. A capacity question may require examination of a person's ability to understand specific information, appreciate consequences, reason about options, and communicate a choice in a defined situation. Those questions require different evidence and cannot be resolved with an identical battery of tests.

Civil work belongs to the wider field of forensic psychology. Its techniques overlap with clinical assessment, but its conclusions are written for a legal decision and must be precise about their evidentiary reach. The broader principles of forensic psychological assessment also apply.

Civil Forensic Psychology Versus Criminal Forensic Psychology

Civil and criminal forensic psychologists use many of the same scientific tools: structured interviews, records review, standardized measures, behavioral observations, collateral information, and evaluation of validity. The distinction lies primarily in the question and legal procedure. Criminal evaluations may address competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, sentencing-related questions, or an individual's risk in a justice context. Civil evaluations may address psychological damages, functional disability, decision-making capacity, guardianship, family-law disputes, or civil commitment.

The same clinical condition can have different relevance across these proceedings. Depression might be important in a civil damages case because of documented changes in work and daily activity; in a parenting matter because of its practical effects on caregiving; and in a capacity matter because of its impact, if any, on a specific decision. The condition itself answers none of those legal questions.

Jurisdiction matters. Rules of evidence, standards of proof, rights to an examination, discovery obligations, privilege, guardianship law, disability criteria, and legal definitions vary across U.S. states, federal courts, other countries, and administrative systems. The psychology supplies evidence within those rules; it does not supply one universal legal standard.

What Kinds of Civil Cases Involve Forensic Psychologists?

Personal Injury, Emotional Distress, and Psychological Damages

Personal injury and employment-related litigation may raise claims of psychological harm following a collision, workplace event, alleged harassment, assault, medical event, or other disputed occurrence. An evaluator may investigate reported distress, symptom course, premorbid functioning, medical and psychiatric history, current limitations, treatment needs, and the possible contribution of the alleged event.

Psychological injury assessment may include trauma-related symptoms, mood and anxiety disorders, persistent pain, sleep difficulties, cognitive complaints, and changes in occupational or interpersonal functioning. It also considers the possibility that several causes interact. Foote and colleagues describe the need for a defensible referral-to-testimony process in these contested civil cases. The specialized questions of injury attribution, damages, and causation deserve their own detailed treatment; this article establishes how the larger field approaches them.

A serious limitation deserves emphasis: symptoms beginning after an event do not, by themselves, establish that the event legally caused them. Clinical diagnosis, psychological contribution, alternative explanations, and legal causation require separate reasoning. Compensation and liability are legal findings.

Disability, Occupational Functioning, and Benefits

Disability-related disputes can turn on whether a person's psychological symptoms affect particular activities, duties, or participation in everyday life. Evaluations may examine attention, memory, emotional regulation, interpersonal performance, reliability, endurance, and task-specific functioning, using appropriate records and corroboration rather than a symptom checklist alone.

The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health provides a framework for understanding functioning in relation to activities, participation, and environmental factors. It is a classification framework, not a determination that a specific claimant qualifies for a particular benefit. The applicable benefit program or law sets the eligibility criteria.

A condition may be genuine yet not meet a given program's threshold. Conversely, someone may retain skills in one setting while experiencing substantial limitations under different demands. Forensic conclusions should specify tasks, environments, timing, supports, and available evidence rather than equating a diagnostic label with total inability.

Decision-Making Capacity, Guardianship, and Vulnerability

Capacity examinations may be sought in connection with guardianship, consent, management of financial matters, estate decisions, or disputes about a transaction. An evaluator needs to define the exact decision and relevant legal test. Understanding one transaction does not necessarily imply ability or inability to handle another. Capacity may vary by decision, complexity, communication supports, health status, and time.

The American Bar Association and American Psychological Association's capacity-assessment resources emphasize structured assessment and the practical context in which decisions are made. The evaluation should consider the person's retained abilities, opportunities for support, and less restrictive alternatives where relevant. A cognitive screening score alone is not a legal declaration of incapacity.

A diagnosis of dementia, intellectual disability, a psychiatric disorder, or a neurological condition can inform the examination when relevant; it does not automatically determine capacity. A competent assessment examines what the person can understand and do under conditions that fairly represent the decision at issue.

Child Custody, Parenting, and Child Protection

Civil and family forensic psychology includes evaluations in disputes over parenting arrangements and investigations of child protection concerns. Such evaluations may involve interviews, relevant records, observations, developmental history, caregiving resources, family interaction, and potential safety concerns. They require expertise in child development, family dynamics, and the legal standards governing the specific case.

The APA's child-custody practice guidance addresses evidence-based and ethically informed evaluations of parenting arrangements. The APA's 2024 child-protection guidelines address maltreatment, parenting capacity, risk management, and potential harm to a child. Custody and child protection are related fields with distinct referrals, procedures, and evidentiary contexts.

A psychologist may explain psychologically relevant parenting capacities, developmental needs, and possible effects of particular arrangements. The court applies the jurisdiction's best-interests or other legal standard. Future dedicated English articles will provide comprehensive examinations of custody and child-protection methods; until they are published, this overview does not create links to their reserved URLs.

Civil Commitment and Other Court-Ordered Evaluations

Some civil proceedings concern involuntary treatment or detention, protective measures, or related questions involving risk and functioning. The legal threshold for such intervention differs by jurisdiction and may require particular findings that the psychological assessment alone cannot establish.

Where a risk opinion is requested, evaluators must identify the outcome, timeframe, setting, and evidentiary base. A history of psychiatric symptoms is not a substitute for a structured inquiry. Risk factors describe associations; they do not demonstrate that a particular event will happen to an individual. Protective factors, care, current circumstances, and the uncertainty of prediction all matter.

What Does a Civil Forensic Psychologist Actually Assess?

The evaluation is organized around propositions that should remain separate in the report. A reported symptom is the person's account. A behavioral observation is what the examiner witnessed. A diagnosis is a clinical classification supported by defined criteria. An assessment result is the output of a procedure and must be interpreted in light of its reliability and validity. Functional impairment concerns restrictions in concrete activities. Causal attribution is an inference about what contributed to a change. An expert opinion synthesizes admissible and scientifically defensible findings for the referral question. A legal finding belongs to the authorized legal decision-maker.

These levels often become confused in litigation. For example, a high self-reported distress score may warrant further exploration; it cannot independently establish diagnosis, credibility, disability, event causation, future incapacity, or entitlement to damages. An observation of fluent conversation does not establish unrestricted ability to perform complex work. A diagnosis in a medical chart does not automatically prove that a contested incident caused the diagnosed condition.

An evaluation gains evidentiary force when its conclusion shows the path from observations and records through established methods to a carefully bounded opinion. The APA forensic guidelines make relevance, assessment limitations, population validity, impartiality, and clarity of opinion central professional concerns.

How Does a Civil Forensic Psychological Evaluation Work?

1. Clarify the Legal Referral Question and Professional Role

The evaluator first identifies who requested the assessment, its purpose, the relevant questions, deadlines, legal orders, and documents required. Whether the psychologist is court-appointed, jointly instructed, retained by one party, or consulted by an agency can affect logistics and disclosure, but impartiality remains essential.

The practitioner should define what is within psychological expertise, what requires another specialty, and which legal questions remain for counsel or the court. A request to determine whether a person is telling the truth in every respect, or to guarantee a legal outcome, exceeds what psychological testing establishes.

2. Explain the Process and Limits of Confidentiality

Before substantive assessment, the examinee should receive an understandable explanation of the evaluator's role, intended recipients of information, consent or legal authority, the possible use of results, and the limits of confidentiality. Participation may be voluntary or compelled under specific procedures; that distinction should be documented.

Forensic examinations may generate reports and records available to the retaining party, opposing party, court, or other authorized recipients. The treating therapist's ordinary therapeutic confidentiality framework should never simply be assumed. The relevant law and order govern access, privilege, and disclosure.

3. Review Records and Establish a Timeline

Records review may include relevant health records, employment or school documentation, occupational requirements, contemporaneous communications, prior evaluations, accommodations, and other material within authorized scope. The evaluator should distinguish records created near the events from later recollections and note missing or contradictory evidence.

A useful timeline follows baseline functioning, reported exposure, symptom onset, treatment, subsequent events, changes in functioning, and present status. This chronology is an investigative aid. Temporal proximity alone cannot resolve causation. Records may contain errors, omissions, diagnostic impressions made for different purposes, or information that predates the case.

4. Interview the Examinee and, When Appropriate, Collateral Sources

The forensic interview explores the experience in the person's words, current symptoms, past functioning, contextual influences, and concrete examples of day-to-day limitations. The interviewer attends to consistency while recognizing that inconsistent descriptions can have many explanations, including memory, language, stress, misunderstanding, and actual change over time.

Collateral interviews may be useful when permitted, particularly for externally observable functioning. Informants can be informative and biased at the same time. Their statements need source identification and critical evaluation. The number of interviewees does not substitute for evidence quality.

5. Select Assessment Instruments for the Actual Question

A psychologist may use standardized symptom measures, personality inventories, cognitive tests, functional assessments, or response-validity procedures when their application is justified. Selection depends on the construct, available norms, age, language, disability, cultural context, and whether the measure has been evaluated in the relevant population.

A test that has adequate reliability in one sample may have limited applicability in another. A measure developed for symptom screening should not be presented as an automatic legal disability determination. The APA specialty guidelines expressly require attention to population appropriateness and the implications of using techniques outside their validated settings.

6. Evaluate Response Validity Without Assuming Deception

High-stakes evaluations often require attention to response consistency, symptom overreporting, underreporting, and test-taking engagement. Symptom validity and performance validity measures address particular properties of responses or performance. They are not flawless detectors of dishonesty.

A systematic review of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology found meaningful discrimination in some studied groups while identifying specificity problems and possible misclassification in clinical populations. A 2026 review of differential explanations for invalid validity indicators discusses factors such as fatigue, stress, language and cultural differences, and other circumstances. These findings support integrating multiple sources and reporting measurement limitations rather than equating any single score with malingering.

7. Integrate Evidence, Alternatives, and Uncertainty

The final opinion should integrate independent information where possible, test patterns, observed behavior, stated limitations, chronology, and scientifically plausible alternatives. The assessor should distinguish what is documented, what is self-reported, what is inferred, what is disputed, and what cannot be determined.

If the referral involves causation, the evaluator should assess potential prior vulnerability, independent conditions, intervening events, competing exposures, and the consequences of any missing baseline. An individual may have genuine distress that is partly attributable to more than one circumstance. Some cases support a bounded opinion; others do not permit a reliable attribution.

8. Write a Transparent Report and, if Needed, Testify

A clear civil forensic report usually states the referral question, professional qualifications, materials reviewed, methods used, relevant findings, interpretive reasoning, competing explanations, limitations, and conclusions. The report should indicate when opinions are contingent on disputed facts or might change if additional evidence becomes available.

Testimony communicates the same bounded reasoning in accessible language. Neither detailed professional credentials nor technical terminology can replace an explanation of why the selected method supports the specific conclusion. In the United States, applicable evidence rules and judicial decisions determine admissibility, and an expert's permissible scope may vary by court.

Psychological Injury, Causation, and the Problem of Attribution

Psychological harm is often multidetermined. Stressors, preexisting vulnerability, previous episodes, contemporaneous life events, physical pain, access to care, social circumstances, and the course of recovery can contribute to an outcome. Identifying a clinical syndrome may be one part of the inquiry, but it does not specify the relative contribution of a defendant's alleged conduct.

Consider a hypothetical civil claim involving anxiety after a workplace incident. The psychologist might document anxiety symptoms, compare current occupational performance with earlier records, consider other stressors and prior difficulties, assess the timing and course of symptoms, and identify uncertainties. This psychological analysis differs from deciding whether the alleged conduct occurred, whether a legal duty was breached, or whether the applicable legal test for damages is satisfied.

The peer-reviewed civil forensic evaluation review describes how expert practice intersects with litigation standards and evidence; a more recent discussion of causal attribution highlights the need to keep injury, impairment, and imputability conceptually separate. Neither a diagnosis nor temporal sequence alone is sufficient to settle every causal question. The expert must explain the strength and the limits of the available inference.

The same discipline applies to prognosis. Estimating recovery, future care requirements, or prospective work restrictions requires attention to evidence, changes over time, interventions, and the limited external validity of group statistics for a single claimant. Statistical associations do not make a personalized future certain.

Reliability, Validity, Accuracy, and Error in Civil Assessment

Reliability concerns consistency of a measure or procedure. Validity concerns whether the interpretation is supported for its intended use. Sensitivity and specificity concern classification under defined conditions. Positive predictive value also depends on the prevalence of the target condition in the relevant population. These properties must not be collapsed into a generic claim that a test is scientific.

Suppose, for illustration, a hypothetical screening procedure has 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity and the condition is present in 10% of the evaluated population. Among 1,000 people, 90 true cases might screen positive while 90 people without the condition also screen positive. Half of the positive screens would then be false positives. These are illustrative assumed numbers, not published accuracy estimates for a named civil forensic test. The example shows why base rates matter before a result is interpreted.

Cultural fairness and population fit are equally important. The systematic review by Nijdam-Jones and Rosenfeld examines the cross-cultural assessment literature for feigning instruments and the limits of transporting classification methods among linguistically and culturally diverse populations. Translation alone does not establish equivalent norms, validity, or interpretation.

Civil psychologists should distinguish screening accuracy from diagnostic determination and distinguish both from a psycholegal conclusion. An apparently precise number can still be based on uncertain assumptions, incomplete records, a narrow validation population, or a mismatch between the measured construct and the legal question.

Can a Psychologist Tell Whether Someone Is Faking Symptoms?

Psychologists can assess indicators of response validity, compare different information sources, and describe when reported difficulties or performances are inconsistent with other evidence. This work may be useful in claims involving cognitive symptoms, emotional distress, or functional limitations. It must be undertaken without presuming that litigation itself proves deceit.

Intentional feigning, misunderstanding, ordinary variation, dissociation, fatigue, disability, language barriers, severe symptoms, and the structure of a particular instrument may generate overlapping patterns. The finding that a test performance is invalid may limit interpretation of that performance; it does not by itself establish that every reported symptom is fabricated.

The van Impelen and colleagues meta-analysis specifically cautions about limits of classification specificity. Leonhard's 2026 review discusses alternative explanations that can produce potentially misleading indicators. Appropriate reporting therefore states what the instrument measures, its tested error rates and population limits, what alternative explanations were considered, and how the complete evidence supports the conclusion.

The Difference Between Treating and Forensic Psychologists

Treating psychologists focus on a person's clinical needs, therapeutic alliance, care, and recovery. Their records may contain highly relevant contemporaneous evidence, and their clinical expertise is valuable. A forensic psychologist works toward a legally defined referral question, often considering competing explanations and materials from multiple parties.

The two roles can create different information-gathering priorities, confidentiality arrangements, and expectations. A treating clinician may be able to describe symptoms observed during care and the treatment provided without having investigated all competing causal narratives. A civil evaluator may need additional data before forming an attribution or capacity opinion.

Combining therapeutic and forensic roles can create conflicts of interest or compromise the appearance and practice of impartiality. The APA Specialty Guidelines address role clarity, avoiding conflicts, and the obligation to consider alternative hypotheses. A court may still hear factual or clinical testimony from a therapist, subject to applicable rules and limitations.

Court-Appointed Evaluator, Independent Evaluation, and Party-Retained Expert

Civil evaluations may be ordered by a court, requested by an administrative body, conducted by agreement, or commissioned by a party. Terms such as independent psychological evaluation, independent medical examination, and court-appointed expert have different procedural meanings depending on jurisdiction and setting.

Who selects and pays an examiner can affect perceived independence, and evaluators must address potential allegiance and financial conflicts through transparent methods and reasoning. Appointment alone does not guarantee neutrality, and party retention does not excuse advocacy disguised as science.

A well-constructed report remains open to scrutiny: What was the referral? Which records were considered? Were alternative explanations evaluated? Are the tests suitable for the examinee and the precise issue? What could change the conclusion? How would a reasonable examiner interpret the same evidence?

What Legal Rules Control Civil Forensic Expert Evidence?

In U.S. federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert testimony, including reliability of principles and methods, sufficient facts or data, and reliable application to the facts of the case. The 2023 amendment clarifies the proponent's burden on admissibility and emphasizes that opinions must remain within the inferences supported by the methodology.

The Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals addresses the trial judge's role in evaluating relevant and reliable scientific expert evidence. It does not convert a test score into an automatic factual finding. Different U.S. jurisdictions may apply different evidentiary approaches and case law; administrative hearings and proceedings outside the United States follow their own frameworks.

Admissibility, weight, burden of proof, and the ultimate civil judgment are legal questions. A psychologist can explain research evidence and a defensible expert opinion, while the judge or other legally authorized decision-maker applies procedural and substantive law.

Ethical Standards, Power Imbalances, and Fairness

High-stakes civil assessments can affect parental relationships, financial security, personal autonomy, access to services, or the ability to work. This makes accurate communication about the evaluator's role essential. The examinee should understand whose questions are being answered and who may see the findings.

Forensic psychologists should evaluate their own expertise, manage financial and relationship conflicts, protect test security, minimize unnecessary disclosure, describe data gaps, and use instruments appropriate to language and disability. Cultural stereotypes should not stand in for behavioral evidence. Where an accommodation changes administration conditions, its effects on standardization and interpretation should be recorded.

The goal is a defensible opinion whose limits are visible. An explicit statement that the data are insufficient for an opinion can be more scientifically appropriate than a dramatic assertion made to satisfy pressure from a party.

How to Read or Challenge a Civil Forensic Psychological Report

Readers can examine whether the opinion actually answers the referral question, whether the legal standard has been specified, and whether the report separates verified facts from allegations and self-report. They can ask whether pre-event functioning and alternative causes were considered; whether the examiner used validated methods for this population; and whether numerical scores were interpreted within their proper scope.

The same scrutiny applies to opinions favorable and unfavorable to a litigant. A positive symptom screen does not prove legal harm, and a response-validity concern does not necessarily negate every clinical difficulty. Differences between evaluators may arise from different records, assumptions, methods, or interpretations and should be analyzed in those terms.

Procedural rights to disclosure, correction, reexamination, testimony, or objection depend on the applicable legal system. Questions about the appropriate procedure belong with a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction. Psychological evaluation results should be interpreted with professionals competent in their methods and intended use.

Common Myths About Civil Forensic Psychology

Myth: A Diagnosis Proves a Civil Claim

A diagnosis establishes, to the degree supported, a clinical classification. A civil claim may require additional findings about conduct, causation, impairment, liability, or a governing benefit standard. Those are distinct questions.

Myth: A Psychological Test Determines Whether a Person Is Lying

Response-validity measures contribute limited evidence about specific response patterns. Their false-positive and false-negative risks depend on the tool, threshold, context, and population. They cannot automatically adjudicate honesty, motive, or the truth of an entire legal narrative.

Myth: Whoever Hires an Expert Owns the Expert's Opinion

The retaining relationship structures the engagement, but credible forensic methodology requires impartial evaluation of available evidence and candid acknowledgment of limitations. Ethical practice is not measured by which party benefits.

Myth: A Cognitive Screening Score Establishes Legal Incapacity

Screening results may indicate areas needing fuller assessment. Legal capacity is task- and jurisdiction-dependent, and psychological abilities may vary with context and support. The applicable law defines the adjudicative question.

Myth: More Tests Always Mean a More Accurate Opinion

Additional tests help when they measure relevant constructs with suitable validity and add genuinely useful information. Redundant or poorly matched measures can add noise and misleading apparent precision.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between civil forensic psychology and legal psychology?

Civil forensic psychology is a specific applied practice concerned with psychological questions in civil proceedings. Legal psychology is broader and also studies behavior, memory, attitudes, and decisions throughout legal systems. The main distinction is the case-specific psycholegal purpose.

What is an example of a civil forensic psychology case?

A psychologist might evaluate whether reported psychological difficulties and documented changes in functioning are consistent with a claimed event, consider competing causes, and explain the strength of the evidence. The decision about legal liability and damages remains with the legal process.

Do civil forensic psychologists diagnose mental illness?

They may assess and diagnose conditions within their competence when that information is relevant. The referral may instead concern functioning, decision-making abilities, parenting capacity, or interpretation of existing records. Diagnosis alone does not settle the legal issue.

Can a psychologist decide who should have child custody?

Psychologists can assess psychologically relevant information and, where appropriate, make recommendations within the referral and applicable guidelines. Courts or other designated legal authorities determine the legal arrangement under local law.

Is a civil forensic evaluation confidential?

Confidentiality, privilege, disclosure, and access depend on the referral, consent or legal order, the information recipient, and jurisdiction. A forensic examination generally has different confidentiality expectations than private psychotherapy; its limits should be explained before the evaluation begins.

What does an independent psychological evaluation include?

Depending on the question, it may include records review, clinical and forensic interviews, standardized measures, response-validity procedures, functional assessment, collateral evidence, a written report, and testimony. The methods should be individualized rather than selected from a universal checklist.

Can symptoms be genuine if a validity test raises concerns?

Yes. A validity indicator may limit how some information can be interpreted and can require further investigation. It should be weighed with clinical history, documented functioning, medical factors, instrument characteristics, and alternative explanations.

Are civil forensic psychology rules the same in every U.S. state?

No. Procedural rules, evidentiary standards, substantive legal definitions, court authority, and professional regulation differ. Research findings have to be connected to the specific jurisdiction's legal question.

What qualifications should a civil forensic psychologist have?

Qualifications depend on the work: psychology licensure where required, expertise in the relevant psychological domain, forensic knowledge, training in selected assessment methods, cultural and disability competence, and familiarity with the governing legal context. Expertise in criminal evaluation does not automatically establish expertise in every civil subspecialty.

Can a civil forensic psychologist predict recovery or future harm?

A psychologist may offer a bounded prognosis when enough longitudinal and population-relevant evidence exists. Forecasts should state assumptions, timeframe, alternatives, uncertainty, and factors that could modify the outcome. Group patterns cannot guarantee an individual's future.

References

American Bar Association & American Psychological Association. (2008). Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: A handbook for psychologists. APA/ABA capacity resources.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.

American Psychological Association. (2022). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. APA professional practice guidelines.

American Psychological Association. (2024). Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. APA policy.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). U.S. Reports, Government Publishing Office.

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. (Amended 2023). Testimony by expert witnesses. Rule text and committee notes.

Foote, W. E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Young, G. (2020). Civil forensic evaluation in psychological injury and law: Legal, professional, and ethical considerations. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09398-3.

Leonhard, C. (2026). A narrative review of differential diagnoses in the forensic determination of malingering based on discrepancies and scores on performance and symptom validity tests. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 119, 103114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2026.103114.

Nijdam-Jones, A., & Rosenfeld, B. (2017). Cross-cultural feigning assessment: A systematic review of feigning instruments used with linguistically, ethnically, and culturally diverse samples. Psychological Assessment, 29(11), 1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000438.

Saint-Jammes, J. T. (2026). Causal attribution in forensic psychological injury: Legal causation, validity assessment, and expert reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1877102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1877102

van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Merten, T. (2014). The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(8), 1336–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.984763.

World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO classification.

Young, G. (2021). Testing in psychological injury and law. Psychological Injury and Law, 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09405-1.

Psychological Encyclopedia