Abstract
Evidence-based forensic psychological opinions require thorough and accurate information about examinees. Psychometric instruments can facilitate diagnostic decision making, but they rely on examinees to respond honestly to questions and put forth good effort on cognitive tests. Given the strong incentives for examinees in psychological injury cases to minimize prior problems and emphasize postaccident or posttrauma problems, the assessment of validity as part of forensic psychological evaluations is essential. Best practices in forensic psychology have their foundation in ethical principles. The purpose of this position statement is to promote ethical psychological practice in legal contexts by reviewing validity assessment issues and their ethical foundations. Because no previously published document focused specifically on symptom and performance validity assessment in psychological injury evaluations performed in forensic contexts, such a position statement provided by a professional organization devoted to the interface of psychological injury and law was needed to inform and guide practitioners and to educate other interested parties. The position statement emphasizes (a) the need for ethical practice in assessing validity, (b) consideration of factors such as culture and functional limitations, and (c) the importance of adopting a comprehensive, impartial, and scientific approach to validity assessment. The position statement acknowledges areas of differing opinions and the need for further research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (EPPCC). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Behnke, S. H., Perlin, M. L., & Bernstein, M. (2003). The essentials of New York Mental Health Law: a straightforward guide for clinicians of all disciplines. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Binder, L. M., & Rohling, M. L. (1996). Money matters: a meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed head injury. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 5–8.
British Psychological Society. (2009). Assessment of effort in clinical testing of cognitive functioning for adults. Leicester, UK: Author
Bush, S. S. (2009). Symptom validity assessment practices: ethical and professional considerations (Die praxis der beschwerdenvalidierung: ethische und fachwissenschaftliche gesichtspunkte). In T. Merten & H. Dettenborn (Eds.), Assessment of Malingering (Diagnostik der Beschwerdenvaliditat) (pp. 79–100). Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.
Bush, S. S. (2013). Ethical considerations in mild traumatic brain injury cases and symptom validity assessment. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering (pp. 45–56). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Bush, S. S., Barth, J. T., Pliskin, N. H., Arffa, S., Axelrod, B. N., Blackburn, L. A., & Silver, C. H. (2005a). Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 997–1007.
Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Troster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. H. (2005b). Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 419–426.
Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006a). Ethical Issues in forensic psychology: a systematic model for decision making. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. (2006b). Diagnostik der beschwerdenvalidität: praktische gesichtspunkte und medizinische erfordernisse. Neurologie und Rehabilitation, 12, 69–74.
Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., & Silver, C. (2007). Diagnostik der beschwerdenvalidität: praktische gesichtspunkte und medizinische erfordernisse. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 17, 155–163.
Feinstein, A., Ouchterlony, D., Somerville, J., & Jardine, A. (2001). The effects of litigation on symptom expression: a prospective study following mild traumatic brain injury. Medical Science and the Law, 41, 116–121.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for administering and scoring the MMPI. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Heilbronner, R. L., & Henry, G. K. (2013). Psychological assessment of symptom magnification in mild traumatic brain injury cases. In D. A. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Symptom Validity Assessment and Malingering (pp. 183–202). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129
Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13, 77–90.
Rogers, R. (2008). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 3–13). New York: Guilford Press.
Ruff, R. (2009). Best practice guidelines for forensic neuropsychological examinations of patients with traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 24, 131–140.
Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545–561.
Sweet, J. J., & Moulthrop, M. A. (1999). Self-examination questions as a means of identifying bias in adversarial assessments. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1, 73–88.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express appreciation to Drs. Bradley N. Axelrod, Louise Ferretti, Michael Gottlieb, Andrew W. Kane, Izabela Z. Schultz, Rodney D. Vanderploeg, and Gerald Young and for their review and comments.
Conflicts of Interest
We collectively have no conflicts of interest to report and represent no organization other than ASAPIL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Sample Informed Consent Form*
Forensic Psychological Evaluation**
*This is a general template for informed consent that may not apply to all circumstances or jurisdictions. Practitioners may be well served by seeking advice from personal counsel to determine if this consent is appropriate for their circumstances or jurisdiction and modify as needed.
**Adapted from the sample consent form for independent neuropsychological evaluations provided by the National Academy of Neuropsychology (Bush et al. 2005a, 2005b).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bush, S.S., Heilbronner, R.L. & Ruff, R.M. Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity, Response Bias, and Malingering: Official Position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law. Psychol. Inj. and Law 7, 197–205 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9198-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9198-7