Assessing the Credibility of Clinical Presentations Using Performance and Symptom Validity Tests: Current Trends and Future Directions—Part II

3Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This editorial article introduces the second special issue of Psychology & Neuroscience devoted to performance and symptom validity testing. The reason for including the second special issue is that we received an unusually large number of high-quality submissions that could not fit into a single volume. The articles included in this second part offer practical, immediately actionable knowledge to assessors while simultaneously advancing the methodology for calibrating instruments designed to evaluate the credibility of a given clinical presentation. In this introduction, we briefly summarize each article and reflect on an emerging epistemological question about the interpretation of noncredible results in the context of a clinical research study: If a relatively large proportion of clinical patients fail a validity test without any apparent external incentives to appear impaired, should this be interpreted as a possible vulnerability of that validity test to false-positive classifications or as evidence that noncredible responding is relatively common outside of medicolegal/forensic assessments? Themethodological implications of symptom and performance validity research are discussed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Giromini, L., & Erdodi, L. A. (2023). Assessing the Credibility of Clinical Presentations Using Performance and Symptom Validity Tests: Current Trends and Future Directions—Part II. Psychology and Neuroscience, 16(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000325

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free