Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Sep;33(3):653-657.
doi: 10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2. Epub 2023 Aug 18.

Quo Vadis Forensic Neuropsychological Malingering Determinations? Reply to Drs. Bush, Faust, and Jewsbury

Christoph Leonhard  1
Affiliations
Review

Quo Vadis Forensic Neuropsychological Malingering Determinations? Reply to Drs. Bush, Faust, and Jewsbury

Christoph Leonhard. Neuropsychol Rev. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.

Keywords: Bias; Malingering; Performance validity tests, Measurement; Test accuracy; Test validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Al-Khairullah, N. A., & Al-Baldawi, T. H. K. (2021). Bayesian computational methods of the logistic regression model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1804(1), 012073. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1804/1/012073
    1. Batt, K., Shores, E. A., & Chekaluk, E. (2008). The effect of distraction on the Word Memory Test and Test of Memory Malingering performance in patients with a severe brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 14(6), 1074–1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561770808137X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bayman, E. O., & Dexter, F. (2021). Multicollinearity in logistic regression models. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 133(2), 362–365. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000005593 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bender, S. D., & Frederick, R. (2018). Neuropsychological models of feigned cognitive deficits. In S. D. Bender & R. Rogers (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (Fourth edition., pp. 42–60). The Guilford Press.
    1. Bevilacqua, D., Davidesco, I., Wan, L., Chaloner, K., Rowland, J., Ding, M., Poeppel, D., & Dikker, S. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony and learning outcomes vary by student–teacher dynamics: Evidence from a real-world classroom electroencephalography study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01274 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources