Jerry J Sweet1, Robert L Heilbronner2, Joel E Morgan3, Glenn J Larrabee4, Martin L Rohling5, Kyle B Boone6, Michael W Kirkwood7, Ryan W Schroeder8, Julie A Suhr9. 1. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. 2. Independent Practice, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Independent Practice, Edison, NJ, USA. 4. Independent Practice, Sarasota, FL, USA. 5. Psychology Department, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA. 6. California School of Forensic Studies, Alliant International University, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Wichita, KS, USA. 9. Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
Abstract
Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures.
Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity measures.
Authors: Nick Corriveau-Lecavalier; Eva C Alden; Nikki H Stricker; Mary M Machulda; David T Jones Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.448
Authors: Isabella J M Niesten; Harald Merckelbach; Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Ingrid Jutten-Rooijakkers; Alfons van Impelen Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-03-18
Authors: Thomas Merten; Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Vicki Hall; Thomas Bodner; Luciano Giromini; Johann Lehrner; Héctor González-Ordi; Pablo Santamaría; Ben Schmand; Giuseppe Di Stefano Journal: Psychol Inj Law Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Esteban Puente-López; David Pina; Reyes López-López; Héctor González Ordi; Irena Bošković; Thomas Merten Journal: Psychol Inj Law Date: 2022-07-26