Symptom Validity and Performance Validity in Forensic Assessment
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Symptom validity and performance validity are two complementary foundations of forensic psychological assessment. Symptom validity concerns the interpretability of what a person reports about symptoms and difficulties; performance validity concerns the interpretability of what the person demonstrates on ability-based tasks. Both are questions about the quality of the evidence in a particular evaluation. Neither test category independently determines whether someone is lying, has a mental disorder, deserves benefits, is competent to stand trial, or is legally responsible for conduct.
The distinction matters because forensic evaluations influence courts, administrative agencies, insurers, correctional systems, and other decision-makers. A credible account of impairment can coexist with an invalid test performance, and a valid cognitive performance can coexist with unusual or exaggerated symptom reporting. The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology's 2021 consensus statement recommends proactively assessing validity in clinical and forensic psychological and neuropsychological evaluations rather than treating test scores as self-authenticating.
What Is Symptom Validity in Forensic Assessment?
Symptom validity is the degree to which an examinee's statements and questionnaire responses can be interpreted as informative accounts of experienced or observed symptoms. A symptom validity test (SVT) examines response patterns such as improbable symptom endorsement, atypical symptom combinations, unusual intensity, inconsistencies, or disproportionate claims. The construct is response validity in symptom reporting, not the factual truth of every sentence the person says.
SVTs can be separate, purpose-built measures or validity indicators embedded in broader self-report inventories. They may examine reports of psychiatric, cognitive, physical, or somatic difficulties. Their interpretive questions are specific: Is the symptom pattern typical of a well-defined reference population? Is it unusually extreme under a tested cutoff? Does it converge with history, interview findings, observed functioning, and corroborated records?
A high overreporting indicator may signal that a symptom inventory needs qualified interpretation. It does not necessarily invalidate every complaint or imply that an objectively documented health condition is absent. Serious illness, an unusual clinical presentation, language misunderstanding, response errors, trauma-related experiences, and sociocultural factors can complicate interpretation. The 2026 review by Ingram and Herring found that the empirical distinction among symptom-domain-specific overreporting indicators remains unsettled.
What Is Performance Validity in Forensic Assessment?
Performance validity refers to whether scores obtained on cognitive, neuropsychological, or other performance-based tasks adequately represent an examinee's ability under the conditions of testing. A performance validity test (PVT) evaluates patterns of task performance that, within validated assumptions and appropriate populations, help identify results that may substantially underestimate ability.
Some PVTs are stand-alone instruments designed specifically to evaluate performance validity. Others are embedded indicators calculated from ordinary cognitive tasks. Their utility rests on validation research, appropriate administration and cutoffs, and knowledge of the examinee's clinical and demographic circumstances. PVTs are not general measures of moral character or motivation, and the conventional label 'effort test' can wrongly imply that the test directly reads a person's internal willingness to cooperate.
For example, a low memory score and a failed PVT do different work in an evaluation: the low memory score describes observed task output, while the failed PVT raises a question about whether that output is a reliable estimate of actual memory ability. It does not establish that memory is normal. As Larrabee's conceptual analysis explains, performance and symptom validity address separate sources of interpretive distortion.
Symptom Validity vs. Performance Validity: The Essential Difference
SVTs primarily assess the interpretability of reported complaints; PVTs primarily assess the interpretability of demonstrated performance. Neither category is interchangeable with ordinary diagnostic tests, impairment ratings, credibility judgments by a judge or jury, or statistical forecasts of future offending.
An individual may report a genuine history of depression and demonstrate valid cognitive performance, while endorsing an atypical range of physical complaints on an SVT. Another examinee may report symptoms in a plausible and consistent manner while obtaining performance results that cannot be interpreted as a dependable measure of cognitive capacity. Evidence about one domain must not automatically be transferred to the other.
Empirical studies support this qualified distinction. A 2021 investigation of whether SVTs and PVTs measure different constructs found overlapping but distinguishable relationships with symptom reports and cognitive performance. In a diverse neuropsychiatric clinical sample, PVT status and MMPI-2-RF symptom validity indices showed limited correspondence, and elevated symptom overreporting scales did not reliably establish invalid neurocognitive performance.
Why Validity Assessment Matters in Legal and Forensic Settings
Forensic assessment begins with a narrowly defined referral question: a claim of cognitive impairment after an injury, a concern about trial-related abilities, a question about psychiatric functioning at a legally relevant time, or a disputed assertion of functional limitation. The evaluator collects evidence relevant to that question. Test validity affects how strongly the collected scores can support a psychological opinion.
The mere existence of a lawsuit, disability claim, criminal charge, or other external incentive warrants thoughtful assessment but never supplies proof of deception. Incentives vary; cooperation may be affected by anxiety, fatigue, distrust, cognitive limitations, prescribed medication, sleep disruption, language barriers, and institutional circumstances. A valid forensic formulation tests alternative explanations and considers convergent information.
Crucially, the legal question is governed by the jurisdiction, while validity testing addresses psychological evidence. A PVT score cannot decide competency to stand trial; an SVT cannot determine criminal responsibility, intent, or guilt; and neither determines whether statutory disability criteria have been met. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize multiple information sources, legally relevant factors, appropriate methods, individual differences, and explicit limitations.
How Performance Validity Tests Work
Stand-Alone Measures
Stand-alone PVTs use standardized tasks and empirically examined decision rules to evaluate performance patterns. Examples in the research literature include the Test of Memory Malingering, the Medical Symptom Validity Test, the Word Memory Test, and the Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Their historical names can be misleading: the 'symptom validity' label in some memory tests refers to performance validity as that term is now commonly defined.
PVTs may use recognition paradigms, measures of consistency, or other procedures for which performance is generally expected to remain high across specified clinical groups. Clinicians must interpret each instrument according to its validated conditions, manuals, research, and cutoffs. A recognizable instrument name alone does not validate its use in a new language, a different disability group, a remote environment, or a forensic referral type.
A systematic review and independent cross-validation of the Victoria Symptom Validity Test describes a substantial research history while identifying unresolved questions about preferred indices, threshold selection, and generalizability. This combination—useful evidence accompanied by meaningful methodological restrictions—is characteristic of careful PVT interpretation.
Embedded Indicators
Embedded PVTs derive validity information from selected scores or response patterns inside a larger ability battery. They can make use of existing testing data, but a low embedded indicator may be sensitive to exactly the cognitive ability being studied, as well as to neurological severity, education, and demographic factors. Their thresholds should be validated in relevant populations, and combinations should be interpreted with attention to overlapping measures.
In one study of combinations of embedded PVTs, stricter thresholds helped control false positives but individual indicators exhibited low sensitivity; combining indicators improved detection only partially. This illustrates the practical tradeoff between protecting genuine patients from false classification and identifying invalid performance.
Below-Chance and Other Response Patterns
On some properly administered forced-choice tasks, statistically reliable performance below chance can provide particularly strong evidence of an atypical response pattern. Even this finding must be evaluated for comprehension, administration problems, and applicability of the statistical model. It establishes an unusual pattern of responding under those test conditions, not access to a person's intention or any legally defined fact.
For many PVTs, the meaningful classification is based on validated cutoffs rather than literal below-chance responding. The threshold, score distribution, tested reference groups, and false-positive rate are essential. The 2020 multidimensional criteria paper distinguishes isolated invalid scores from a sufficiently supported formulation of malingered neuropsychological dysfunction.
How Symptom Validity Tests Work
Overreporting, Underreporting, and Response Inconsistency
Symptom validity analysis examines several response styles that need separate interpretation. Overreporting means describing symptoms in an unusual, exaggerated, or otherwise atypical manner under the measure's definitions. Underreporting involves minimizing or denying difficulties. Inconsistent responding may reflect inattention, comprehension problems, careless responding, fluctuating experience, or deliberate response strategies. One response style does not automatically imply another.
Measures such as the MMPI family and Personality Assessment Inventory contain indicators for certain patterns of infrequent or unusual symptoms, negative impression management, positive impression management, and inconsistency. Such scales are studied as psychometric indicators, with specific populations and cutoffs. They should not be described as machine-based lie detectors or as independent proof of a psychiatric diagnosis.
One civil-forensic study of MMPI-2-RF validity scales found evidence that selected overreporting indicators distinguished comparison groups, but its simulation and known-group designs need to be distinguished from the evidentiary burden in any specific real-world case. The October 2026 review of broadband symptom validity testing further challenges assumptions that scales labeled cognitive, somatic, or psychiatric always isolate those domains reliably.
Cross-Checking Reports Against the Full Record
A well-supported interpretation brings standardized results into contact with interview accounts, contemporaneous medical records, school and employment histories, medication and treatment records where available, behavioral observations, functional activities, and legally authorized collateral information. Inconsistency can be informative, but it must be explained in light of time, setting, fatigue, symptom fluctuation, diagnostic complexity, and incomplete documentation.
Corroborating evidence can confirm that a disorder or injury occurred even when a current symptom-report profile is difficult to interpret. Conversely, medical documentation of an injury does not make every later test score automatically valid. These statements address different sources of evidence and preserve the distinction between diagnosis, impairment, report quality, task performance, and psycholegal conclusion.
Sensitivity, Specificity, False Positives, and False Negatives
Sensitivity is the proportion of truly invalid cases identified by a particular validated decision rule in a defined study population. Specificity is the proportion of genuinely valid cases correctly classified as valid. A false positive occurs when valid performance or reporting is incorrectly flagged as invalid; a false negative occurs when invalid performance or reporting is missed. These quantities depend on the reference criterion, setting, sample, cutoff, and testing conditions.
High specificity is especially important when an adverse forensic interpretation could restrict rights or undermine access to treatment or compensation. But increasing specificity can reduce sensitivity, leaving some invalid presentations undetected. A test's advertised accuracy from one validation sample does not supply a universally applicable error rate.
Positive predictive value—the probability that a flagged result truly corresponds to the target condition—depends heavily on the target condition's prevalence or base rate. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers rather than a claim about any real instrument: among 1,000 people, if 100 truly have invalid performance, a test with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity would flag 80 of them but also flag 45 among the 900 valid performers. Of the 125 flagged people, only 80 would belong to the target group. That example shows why an isolated positive classification must not be recast as an 80% or 95% probability of malingering.
The target condition must itself be defined carefully. A base rate of PVT failure is not automatically a base rate of intentional deception. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis, published in volume 34 of Neuropsychology Review, estimated a pooled clinical PVT failure rate of 16% across 47 studies, with very high heterogeneity. This is useful context for variation across clinical settings; it cannot be transplanted into a criminal, civil, disability, or correctional population as a universal forensic probability.
Why Multiple Validity Tests Are Often Used
Evaluators commonly administer more than one validity indicator to examine whether questionable performance or reporting is isolated or reproducible. A repeated pattern across independently validated measures can strengthen confidence that some data are unreliable. Yet multiplying tests also creates additional opportunities for a chance failure, especially when indicators are correlated or the chosen cutoffs have nontrivial false-positive rates.
There is no scientific rule that every person who fails two measures is malingering. The practical meaning of two or more failures depends on the number of tests, whether they are genuinely independent, their individual specificity, validation samples, clinical conditions, and the degree of convergence with collateral facts. The Sherman, Slick, and Iverson multidimensional criteria recommend considering more than an isolated PVT result, with special interpretation for compelling below-chance findings.
Cross-validation research in mixed clinical samples supports treating isolated failure differently from repeated failures on suitable measures. However, findings from particular batteries do not authorize a fixed numerical rule across every battery. When a composite decision rule is used, its false-positive behavior should be evaluated for the complete rule, not inferred by multiplying presumed independent error rates.
Evidence Quality: Simulation Studies, Known Groups, and Real Cases
Simulation designs assign volunteers to produce genuine or feigned presentations under experimental instructions. They permit experimental control and known assigned conditions, but volunteers may lack the medical complexity, incentives, distress, risk, and lived experience of forensic examinees. Apparent test performance in these designs may overstate real-world accuracy.
Known-groups studies contrast people classified through broader information, such as independently corroborated clinical findings and compelling patterns of responding. They can be more clinically informative, but the study's criterion must be examined for circularity: a PVT should not be praised for predicting an 'invalidity' category that was defined using that same PVT. Excluding ambiguous cases can also exaggerate apparent discrimination.
Field studies add ecological relevance and introduce selection bias, mixed motivations, incomplete records, and heterogeneous diagnoses. Systematic reviews must evaluate these features rather than simply count papers. The 2021 AACN consensus and 2026 methodological review of symptom validity both frame appropriate validation and cautious interpretation as central professional responsibilities.
Validity research estimates classification behavior under specific definitions; it does not reveal a universal objective standard for a person's honesty. Clinicians should ask how the reference group was selected, which diagnoses were represented, whether translation was validated, whether the cutoff was prespecified, how uncertain cases were treated, and whether the full decision rule was tested independently.
Invalid Test Data, Feigning, and Malingering Are Different Conclusions
Invalid performance means that particular task scores do not support their ordinary interpretation as estimates of ability. Noncredible or atypical symptom reporting means that particular symptom responses lack sufficient interpretive support under the methods used. Feigning concerns the presentation of symptoms or impairment as if present or greater than they are, and intention often cannot be established from a score alone.
Malingering ordinarily involves intentional production or exaggeration of symptoms or impairment for an identifiable external incentive. That is a broader, motive-dependent formulation requiring contextual evidence and consideration of alternative explanations. It is separate from a PVT failure, an SVT elevation, a diagnosis, a legal finding, and an adjudication about benefits or responsibility.
The 2020 multidimensional malingering criteria offer a framework for integrating motive, validity findings, marked discrepancies, and rival explanations. They are professional research criteria, not statutes binding every court. A 2026 narrative review of differential diagnoses in forensic malingering determinations reinforces the importance of considering clinical explanations for unusual response patterns.
A valid presentation does not prove every complaint, just as an invalid presentation does not erase the possibility of genuine impairment. Examiners should make a proportionate statement about the material actually affected—one cognitive domain, the entire ability profile when warranted, or particular self-report scales—rather than issuing a sweeping credibility label unsupported by the data.
Clinical and Population Limits
Severe Cognitive Impairment and Developmental Differences
Severe neurological disease, substantial intellectual or developmental disability, profound memory disturbance, sensory limitations, or language-comprehension problems may change how a person performs on a validity measure. Each measure has a specific empirical foundation. A cutoff validated among adults with generally preserved basic comprehension may not fit a person with severe impairment.
Child and adolescent assessment requires developmentally appropriate instruments, age-related norms, and evidence for the setting. Adult PVT or SVT rules should not be transferred to young examinees by analogy. Forensic conclusions must distinguish a person's test understanding, developmental abilities, functional limitations, and the legal capacities at issue.
Psychiatric Conditions, Trauma, and Distress
Psychosis, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress, dissociation, persistent pain, and other conditions can create real symptoms that fluctuate or sound unusual to outsiders. These diagnoses are neither evidence of dishonesty nor an automatic explanation for an invalid score. Evaluators must examine what a given validation study included and what alternative hypotheses are supported in the current case.
Reported distress can be high even when objective cognitive performance is relatively intact. Conversely, severe cognitive or psychiatric disability can be documented despite incomplete or inconsistent self-report. Differential interpretation asks whether discrepancies are expected under a plausible clinical course and whether validity indicators have demonstrated adequate specificity in comparable patients.
Culture, Language, Disability, and Fairness
Translation, literacy, cultural idioms of distress, educational experiences, test familiarity, and the social meaning of particular questionnaire items can influence a validity indicator. Individuals may interpret questions differently and may respond defensively in the face of perceived stigma, legal jeopardy, discrimination, or loss of control over private information.
A responsible report identifies whether the particular instrument has been validated for the examinee's language and relevant population, whether an interpreter or accommodation affected standardized administration, and which conclusions remain uncertain. The APA forensic guidelines specifically require attention to linguistic, cultural, personal, and disability-related factors.
Fairness analysis requires subgroup-specific error rates where adequate data exist. Aggregate specificity cannot certify equal false-positive rates across racialized populations, age groups, education levels, language groups, or diagnostic subgroups. Where evidence is sparse, that limitation belongs in the opinion and must constrain the strength of the inference.
Remote Testing, Technology, and Test Security
Remote administration, unstable connections, distraction, hearing or vision problems, unfamiliar devices, and altered stimulus presentation can change task demands. An instrument validated for standardized in-person use needs evidence or appropriately qualified interpretation before applying the same cutoffs remotely. Automated scoring is useful for consistency but cannot supply missing clinical or population validity.
Professional test security matters because public disclosure of specific items, scoring rules, and thresholds can undermine future use. Examinees should receive an understandable explanation of purpose and rights without turning a published educational article into a manual for manipulating a particular validity instrument.
How a Forensic Examiner Should Integrate Validity Evidence
A defensible evaluation begins with a referral question and a clear explanation of the forensic role, confidentiality limits, and intended uses. The clinician then selects methods appropriate to the person's language, capacities, symptoms, and legal setting, examines clinical and collateral records, and documents all relevant procedures and observations.
Validity assessment should occur throughout the evaluation, rather than as a last-minute accusation after an unexpected low score. The examiner considers measurement error, performance fluctuations, alternate medical explanations, inconsistency across tasks, and the independence of different measures. More tests are not automatically better; the decision should reflect the incremental evidence each instrument provides.
The resulting forensic opinion specifies which data are interpretable, which need qualification, and which cannot support the intended estimate. If there are enough unaffected measures and independent information, some clinically relevant conclusions may remain justified. If pivotal measures are invalid and corroboration is inadequate, the appropriate conclusion may be that the evidence is insufficient to determine the degree of impairment.
Reports should separate direct observations, examinee allegations, third-party statements, diagnoses, scores, psychometric interpretation, hypotheses about response style, and the ultimate psycholegal question. Such separation helps attorneys and courts recognize exactly where professional judgment enters and where the available evidence ends.
Legal Admissibility, Expert Testimony, and Jurisdictional Differences
Forensic psychological validity methods may be introduced in civil litigation, criminal proceedings, disability disputes, and administrative decisions. Their admissibility and weight depend on the applicable jurisdiction. U.S. federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended effective December 1, 2023, requires sufficient facts or data, reliable methods, and reliable application for admissible expert testimony. Different U.S. state systems and other national systems can use different procedures and standards.
A psychologist can explain the test purpose, established validation findings, known error rates and restrictions, chosen thresholds, observed response patterns, and the impact on interpretation. The expert should avoid telling a court that a test conclusively proves dishonesty, intent, criminal responsibility, or a legal entitlement. The ultimate legal finding belongs to the designated decision-maker under the governing law.
The Supreme Court's Daubert decision discusses scientific testing, peer review, potential error rates, standards, and general acceptance as considerations for evaluating expert methodologies in the applicable federal evidentiary context. The 2023 advisory note to Rule 702 likewise emphasizes that forensic testimony must remain within the bounds of reliable application and known limitations.
An admissible method can still be misapplied to an individual; an otherwise informative score may carry little weight when the instrument is poorly suited to the population or when the examiner omits critical alternative explanations. Scientific validity, admissibility, evidentiary weight, and the final legal judgment are distinct questions.
Illustrative Case: Competing Explanations
Consider a hypothetical claimant seeking evaluation after a documented traumatic brain injury. Medical records confirm an injury. Current cognitive testing suggests substantial memory difficulty, two validity indicators are below validated thresholds, symptom questionnaires indicate unusually extensive complaints, and an independent occupational record shows intermittent but meaningful functional activity. These facts do not support an automatic conclusion of malingering.
The examiner must establish whether the PVT thresholds fit the person's neurological status, whether the validity indicators are meaningfully independent, whether the SVT findings reflect atypical reporting rather than symptom severity alone, and whether the observed daily functioning contradicts or merely complements the testing conditions. If the data remain invalid, the examiner can explain that the measured level of impairment is uncertain while acknowledging the documented injury.
If a separate legally relevant question concerns trial competency, the clinician must assess the functional abilities specified by applicable law. The same questionable performance findings can affect confidence in cognitive scores without deciding that competency question by themselves.
Common Myths and Misconceptions
Myth: 'Failing a PVT proves someone is faking.' The result flags performance that may be inconsistent with valid ability measurement under an instrument-specific cutoff. A claim of intentional deception requires a separate evidentiary analysis.
Myth: 'A symptom validity test measures the truthfulness of all symptoms.' An SVT examines specific response patterns, often in a particular domain or inventory. It has imperfect classification accuracy and may not cover all reported symptoms.
Myth: 'An injury or psychiatric diagnosis makes validity testing unnecessary.' Genuine health conditions and invalid or exaggerated components of a presentation can coexist; the presence of disease does not settle the interpretability of each test score.
Myth: 'Two failures always establish malingering.' Multiple findings can increase concern, but decision rules depend on the test battery, cutoffs, reference group, error dependence, clinical context, and corroboration.
Myth: 'A high test score means no impairment.' Strong performance in one domain does not establish unimpaired daily functioning, absence of distress, or legal capacity. The referral question and corroborating evidence govern interpretation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a person have genuine symptoms and fail a PVT?
Yes. A genuine disorder or injury can coexist with performance that does not validly estimate the degree of ability or impairment. A clinician must explain which parts of the assessment remain supported.
Can a person pass a PVT and fail an SVT?
Yes. Performance validity and symptom validity are related but separable constructs. A valid cognitive test performance cannot certify the validity of every symptom report, and an elevated self-report validity scale does not necessarily invalidate objective cognitive scores.
Is symptom validity testing the same as malingering testing?
SVTs contribute evidence about symptom-response patterns. Malingering is a broader formulation involving intentional presentation or exaggeration and an external incentive. The two terms should not be treated as synonyms.
Are PVTs lie detectors?
No. PVTs assess the interpretability of particular performance data within empirically examined rules and limits. They do not directly observe thoughts, intentions, or moral truthfulness.
How many failed PVTs are needed for a forensic conclusion?
There is no context-free universal count. Some research-supported criteria emphasize multiple independent failures and consider compelling below-chance findings separately. The cutoff, battery composition, clinical population, and collateral record determine how strongly a given pattern can be interpreted.
Can an SVT or PVT decide whether someone is competent to stand trial?
No. Competency is a legal question involving specified functional abilities under the relevant jurisdiction. Validity findings can affect confidence in psychological evidence used to assess those abilities.
Do the results predict whether someone will commit a crime?
No. Response validity tests address evidence quality in the current assessment. They are not validated individual predictors of offending, recidivism, or violence risk.
What should an examinee do if the results seem inaccurate?
Request an explanation of which scores were considered invalid, the instruments and populations underlying interpretation, available records, accommodations, and relevant professional review mechanisms. In a court or administrative matter, discuss access to the report and avenues for challenging it with qualified counsel under the applicable rules.
Related English Hub Articles
For the broader structure and purpose of legally relevant evaluation, see Forensic Psychological Assessment: Purpose, Methods, and Limits. For the distinct question of deliberate feigning and external incentives, see Malingering in Forensic Psychology: Feigned Symptoms and Assessment Limits. For an orientation to the professional field, see Forensic Psychology: What It Is and What Forensic Psychologists Do.
Additional planned network connections to assessment of psychopathy and civil forensic practice will be activated when those English-language articles are published and verified. Until then, these concepts remain differentiated in the present article without dead internal links.
Conclusion
The scientific purpose of SVTs and PVTs is to establish how much confidence an evaluator can place in the information generated by a particular assessment. High-quality forensic work integrates both forms of validity evidence with clinical examination, collateral material, appropriate psychometrics, alternative explanations, and the jurisdiction's legally relevant questions. The strength of each opinion should match the quality and limits of the evidence supporting it.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.
Ingram, P. B., & Herring, T. T. (2026). Broadband symptom validity testing: Evaluating contemporary challenges and symptom-domain specificity. Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, 13, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40501-026-00399-8.
Larrabee, G. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(4), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000240.
Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., & Meyers, J. E. (2019). Use of multiple performance and symptom validity measures: Determining the optimal per-test cutoff. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1614227.
Resch, Z. J., et al. (2021). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: A systematic review and cross-validation study. Neuropsychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09477-5.
Roor, J. J., Peters, M. J. V., Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., & Ponds, R. W. H. M. (2024; online 2023). Performance validity test failure in the clinical population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. Neuropsychology Review, 34, 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09582-7.
Sherman, E. M. S., Slick, D. J., & Iverson, G. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa019.
Sweet, J. J., Heilbronner, R. L., Morgan, J. E., et al. (2021). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(6), 1053–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036.
United States Supreme Court. (1993). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/579.
United States. (2023). Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses (2023 amendment). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.
Wygant, D. B., et al. (2010). Examination of the MMPI-2 restructured form validity scales in civil forensic settings. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acp073.