The two authors are honored to be invited as guest editors for this special issue of Psychological Injury and Law. An editorial introduction can be held short because the first of the following articles (Merten et al., 2022, in this issue) was conceived as the proper introduction right from the beginning of the project. Nearly 10 years after an introductory article to a special issue on malingering research for Clínica y Salud (Merten et al., 2013), it was worth looking back at the developments in European validity assessment practices that have unfolded since then. From 2013 onwards, research activities in Europe have not only multiplied, but, on an international scale, major conceptual shifts were completed.

Firstly, validity assessment is no longer equated with malingering assessment. Malingering is just one possible source of validity test failure, and test scores “within the invalid range” (as they should be reported today; Guilmette et al., 2020) indicate noncredible results rather than malingered or feigned symptomatology. In a sound conceptual framework, there is no such thing as a malingering test, and rates of validity test failure should not be equated with base rates of malingering. How far they may be indicative of malingered symptomatology will depend upon factors outside of what can be determined by psychological tests or test results.

The second major trend, related to the first point, is that the traditional forensic domain of symptom and performance validity assessment has been largely extended to patient care, that is to clinical and rehabilitation contexts (e.g., Carone & Bush, 2018; Schroeder & Martin, 2022a). A perspective from which patient groups are uncritically considered bona fide comparison groups for forensic research is increasingly being given up. Rather, more attention has to be paid to the question of how often and under what conditions patients produce noncredible results in clinical psychological assessment. As Schroeder and Martin (2022b) put it, “validity assessment is now viewed as a means to ensure accuracy of neuropsychological test data regardless of cause of invalidity and clinical setting…” (p. 5). For some clinical settings, particularly psychiatric, posttraumatic, and psychosomatic treatment contexts, elevated rates of noncredible results in psychological testing can be expected. The same may be the case for such conditions as chronic pain, chronic fatigue, persistent postconcussive symptoms, or adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A failure to identify invalidity of diagnostic data and noncredible illness presentations may have devastating effects. Thus, it may cause iatrogenic harm from unnecessary interventions (e.g., Sobanski et al., 2020). The tricky question that will remain critical in the years to come is to sort out true positives from false positives.

Other trends in validity assessment include the ever-growing importance of embedded performance validity measures. They offer valuable advantages; they are time saving, allow for a continuous sampling of performance validity, and are more resistant against coaching. However, with a flood of new articles coming out every year, there is also a risk of inflation-like developments, and an underlying paradoxical constellation (dubbed invalid before impaired; Erdodi & Lichtenstein, 2017). Also, self-report validity measures play an increasing role in research and practice (Giromini et al., 2022b) which is also recognized in the updated multidimensional criteria for the diagnosis of malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (Sherman et al., 2020).

The contributions to this issue of Psychological Injury and Law reflect these current trends in validity research. They encompass empirical research and survey reports as well as reviews. In terms of subject matter, they vary from clinical to forensic assessment contexts, from criminal to social security applications.

The authors of the following eight contributions are based in eight different countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland). Authors from seven of these nations contributed to the introduction which is an updated state-of-the-art report on European developments in validity research and practice. The list of contributions to this issue comprises the following articles:

Merten et al. (2022): Symptom and performance validity assessment in European countries: An update.

Giromini et al. (2022a): A survey of practices and beliefs of Italian psychologists regarding malingering and symptom validity assessment.

Hall and Kalus (2022): A comparative analysis of the base rate of malingering using Slick et al. (1999) and Sherman et al. (2020) multidimensional criteria for malingering in a UK litigant population.

van Helvoort et al. (2022): Traits and distorted symptom presentation: A scoping review.

Becke et al. (2022): Joint consideration of validity indicators embedded in Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS).

Bodenburg et al. (2022): Scores in self-report questionnaires assessing adult ADHD can be influenced by negative response bias but are unrelated to performance on executive function and attention tests.

Czornik et al. (2022): Motor reaction times as an embedded measure of performance validity: A study with a sample of Austrian early retirement claimants.

Mangiulli et al. (2022). The memory-undermining effect of simulated crime-related amnesia and its legal implications: A review.