As the stimulating articles in this Special Issue demonstrate, symptom validity tests (SVTs) are alive and well in neuropsychology and allied fields. At the same time, a number of key unresolved issues regarding the construct validity and clinical utility of SVTs remain. In this commentary, we address six largely unanswered questions regarding SVTs: (1) Do SVTs possess clinical validity?; (2) Is malingering taxonic?; (3) Is there an overarching dimension of malingering and low effort?; (4) How should be combine information from different SVTs?; (5) Can the assessment of psychopathy supplement information from SVTs?; and (6) How do ethnicity and culture affect the interpretation of SVTs? We conclude that SVTs play an indispensable role in the detection of aberrant response sets in neuropsychology, although the precise meaning of scores on many SVTs requires clarification.
AxelrodB. N., & SchutteC. (2011). Concurrent validity of three forced-choice measures of symptom validity. Applied Neuropsychology, 18, 27-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2010.523369
2.
Ben-PorathY. (Chair). (2012, March 16th). Validity scales moderate the validity of scores on substantive measures in forensic assessments. Symposium held at the annual convention of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
3.
BianchiniK. J., MathiasC. W., & GreveK. W. (2001). Symptom validity testing: A critical review. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 19-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/clin.15.1.19.1907
4.
BlockJ. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research? In MagnussonD., & EndlerN.S. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 37-63). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BooneK. (2007). Commentary on ‘Cogniform disorder and cogniform condition: Proposed diagnoses for excessive cognitive symptoms’ by Dean C. Delis and Spencer R. Wetter. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 675-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.07.005
6.
BurtonV., Vilar-LopezR., & PuenteA. E. (2012). Measuring effort in neuropsychological evaluations of forensic cases of Spanish speakers. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 675-679.
7.
BushS. S., RuffR. M., TrosterA. I., BarthJ. T., KofflerS. P., PliskinN. H., … SilverC. H. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity - NAN policy & planning committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 419-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002
8.
ByrdD. A., MillerS., ReillyJ., WeberS., WallT.L., & HeatonR. K. (2006). Early environmental factors, ethnicity, and adult cognitive test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 243-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854040590947489
9.
CimaM., MerckelbackH., HollnackS., & KnauerE. (2003). Characteristics of psychiatric prison inmates who claim amnesia. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 373-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00199-X
10.
CleckleyH. H. (1941/1988). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality.St. Louis, MO.: Mosby.
11.
CronbachL. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Oxford England: Harper.
12.
Dandachi-FitzGeraldB., & MerckelbachH., (2013). Feigning ≠ feigning a memory deficit: the medical symptom validity test as an example. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4, 46-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.025511
13.
DelisD. C., & WetterS. R. (2007). Cogniform disorder and condition: Proposed diagnoses for excessive cognitive symptoms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 589-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.04.001
14.
EdensJ. F., BuffingtonJ. K., & TomicicT. L. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between psychopathic traits and malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7, 281-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107319110000700307
15.
EdensJ., & RuizM. (2006). On the validity of validity scales: The importance of defensive responding in the prediction of institutional misconduct. Psychological Assessment, 18, 220-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.220
16.
EdwardsA.L. (1963). A factor analysis of experimental social desirability and response set scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 308-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0039793
17.
EpsteinS. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097
18.
FaustD. (2003). Holistic thinking is not the whole story: Alternative or adjunct approaches for increasing the accuracy of legal evaluations. Assessment, 10, 428-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191103259534
19.
FeynmanR. P. (1974). Cargo cult science. Engineering and Science, 37, 10-13.
20.
FrazierT. W., YoungstromE. A., NaugleR. I., HaggertyK. A., & BuschR. M. (2007). The latent structure of cognitive symptom exaggeration on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 197-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.12.007
21.
GaconoC. B., MeloyJ., SheppardK., SpethE., & RoskeA. (1995). A clinical investigation of malingering and psychopathy in hospitalized insanity acquittees. Bulletin of The American Academy of Psychiatry & The Law, 23, 387-397.
22.
GarbH. N., WoodJ. M., LilienfeldS. O., & NezworskiM. (2005). Roots of the Rorschach controversy. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 97-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002
23.
GreiffensteinM. F., GolaT., & BakerW. (1995). MMPI-2 validity scales versus domain specific measures in detection of factitious traumatic brain injury. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 230-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854049508400485
24.
HaggertyK. A., FrazierT. W., BuschR. M., & NaugleR. I. (2007). Relationships among Victoria symptom validity test indices and personality assessment inventory validity scales in a large clinical sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 917-928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854040600899724
25.
HareR. D. (1991/2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R): 2nd edition technical manual. Multi-Health Systems, Toronto, Canada.
26.
IversonG. L., & FranzenM. D. (1996). Using multiple objective memory procedures to detect simulated malingering. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18, 38-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639608408260
27.
KaganJ. (2012). Psychology's ghosts: The crisis in the profession and the way back.New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
28.
KenrickD. T., & FunderD. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.1.23
29.
KucharskiL.T., DuncanS., EganS. S., & FalkenbachD. M. (2006). Psychopathy and malingering of psychiatric disorder in criminal defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 311-322.
30.
LilienfeldS. O. (1992). The association between antisocial personality and somatization disorders: A review and integration of theoretical models. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 641-662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(92)90136-V
31.
LilienfeldS. O., & HessT. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits and somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 11-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011035306061
LilienfeldS. O., & AndrewsB. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
34.
LilienfeldS. O., WoodJ. M., & GarbH. N. (2006). Why questionable psychological tests remain popular. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 10, 6-15.
McGrathR. E., MitchellM., KimB. H., & HoughL. (2010). Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 450-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019216
MeehlP. E., & GoldenR. (1982). Taxometric methods. In KendallP., & ButcherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 127-181). New York: Wiley.
39.
MerckelbachH., & SmithG. P. (2003). Diagnostic accuracy of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) in detecting instructed malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 145-152.
40.
MerckelbachH., JelicicM., & PetersM. (2011). The residual effect of feigning: how intentional faking may evolve into a less conscious form of symptom reporting. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 33, 131-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.495055
41.
MertenT., BossinkL., & SchmandB. (2007). On the limits of effort testing: Symptom validity tests and severity of neurocognitive symptoms in nonlitigant patients. Journal of Clinical And Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 308-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803390600693607
42.
MertenT., & MerckelbachH., (2013). Forced-choice tests as single-case experiments in the differential diagnosis of intentional symptom distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4, 20-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.023711
43.
MischelW. (1968). Personality and assessment.Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
44.
MischelW. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 249-292). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45.
MoreyL.C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual.Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
46.
NelsonN. W., SweetJ. J., BerryD. R., BryantF. B., & GranacherR. P. (2007). Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: Exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs. Journal of The International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 440-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355617707070373
47.
NisbettR. E., ZukierH., & LemleyR. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4
48.
OreyS. A., CragarD. E., & BerryD. R. (2000). The effects of two motivational manipulations on the neuropsychological performance of mildly head-injured college students. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 335-348.
49.
PaulhusD.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ.P., & ShaverP.R. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
50.
PiedmontR. L., McCraeR. R., RiemannR., & AngleitnerA. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales in volunteer samples: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.582
51.
PoythressN. G., EdensJ. F., & WatkinsM. (2001). The relationship between psychopathic personality features and malingering symptoms of major mental illness. Law And Human Behavior, 25, 567-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012702223004
52.
RamirezR.M., Chirivella-GarridoJ., CaballeroM.C., Ferri-CamposJ., & Noe-SebastianE. (2004). Intelligence, memory and malingering: Correlation between scales. Revista de Neurologia, 38, 28-33.
53.
ReynoldsC.R. (1998). Common sense, clinicians, and actuarialism. In ReynoldsC.R. (Ed.). Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (pp. 261-286). New York: Plenum.
54.
Rivera-MindtM., SaezP., & ByrdD. (2010). Primary challenges in the neuropsychological evaluation of ethnic minority individuals: A brief report. NAN Bulletin, 25, 1-5.
55.
RogersR., & CruiseK. R. (2000). Malingering and deception among psychopaths. In GaconoC. B. (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
56.
RohlingM. L., LarrabeeG. J., GreiffensteinM. F., Ben-PorathY. S., Lees-HaleyP., GreenP., & GreveK.W. (2011). A misleading review of response bias: comment on McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and Hough. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 708-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023327
57.
RosanoffA. (Ed.). (1920). Manual of psychiatry. (5th ed.). Oxford England: John Wiley.
58.
SawyerJ. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 178-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023624
SlickD.J., HoopG., & StraussE. (1995). The Victoria Symptom Validity Test.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
61.
SlickD.J., HoopG., StraussE., & SpellacyF. (1996). Victoria Symptom Validity Test: Effciency for detection of feigned memory impairment and relationship to neuropsychological tests and MMPI-2 validity scales. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, 18, 911-922.
62.
StraussE., ShermanE. S., & SpreenO. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd. ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
SweetJ. J., & Guidotti BretingL. M., (2013). Symptom validity test research: status and clinical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4, 6-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.022311
64.
VickeryC. D., BerryD. R., DearthC. S., VagniniV. L., BaserR. E., CragarD. E., & OreyS. A. (2004). Head injury and the ability to feign neuropsychological deficits. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 37-48.
65.
VictorT. L., BooneK. B., SerpaJ., BuehlerJ., & ZieglerE. A. (2009). Interpreting the meaning of multiple symptom validity test failure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 297-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854040802232682
66.
WaltersG. D., BerryD. T., RogersR., PayneJ. W., & GranacherR. P.Jr. (2009). Feigned neurocognitive deficit: Taxon or dimension?Journal of Clinical and Neuropsychology, 1-10.
67.
WhiteheadW. C. (1985). Clinical decision making on the basis of Rorschach, MMPI, and automated MMPI report data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas.
68.
WidowsM.R., & SmithG.P. (2005). Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
