Neuropsychologists’ Validity Testing Beliefs and Practices: A Survey of North American Professionals

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated changes in neuropsychologists' validity testing beliefs and practices since publication of the last North American survey targeting these issues in 2007 and explored emerging issues in validity testing that had not been previously addressed in the professional survey literature. METHODS: Licensed North American neuropsychologists (n = 316), who primarily evaluate adults, were surveyed in regard to the following topics: (1) comparison of objective validity testing, qualitative data, and clinical judgment; (2) approaches to validity test administration; (3) formal communication in cases of suspected malingering; (4) reporting of validity test results; (5) suspected causes of invalidity; (6) integration of stand-alone, embedded, and symptom-report validity measures; (7) multiple performance validity test interpretation; (8) research practices; and (9) popularity of specific validity instruments. RESULTS: Overall, findings from the current survey indicated that all but a small minority of respondents routinely utilize validity testing in their examinations. Furthermore, nearly all neuropsychologists surveyed believed formal validity testing to be mandatory in forensic evaluations and at least desirable in clinical evaluations. While results indicated general agreement among neuropsychologists across many aspects of validity testing, responses regarding some facets of validity test implementation, interpretation, and reporting were more variable. Validity testing utilization generally did not differ according to level of forensic involvement but did vary in respect to respondent literature consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings differ significantly from past professional surveys and indicate an increased utilization of validity testing, suggesting a pronounced paradigm shift in neuropsychology validity testing beliefs and practices.