Expert beliefs and practices regarding neuropsychological validity testing

Abstract

Objective: The current study investigated expert beliefs and practices as they relate to neuropsychological validity testing. Methods: North American neuropsychologists with expertise in neuropsychological validity testing (n = 24) were surveyed on numerous items related to validity testing. Results were analyzed and compared to findings from a prior expert survey and a recent survey of a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners. Results: Responses varied among experts on some items, indicating that experts have differences of opinion and practice regarding certain validity testing topics. However, expert opinion converged on a number of topics central to validity testing, particularly those highlighting the need for and importance of validity testing in neuropsychological assessment. Notably, expert responses on these topics often agreed with responses obtained from a prior expert sample and a general sample of neuropsychological practitioners. Conclusions: The results allow practitioners to see the range of validity testing beliefs and practices among current experts. Especially in those areas where consensus emerged, the results provide a way for practitioners to determine if their practices are consistent with those of their expert colleagues.

Keywords:

• Malingering
• effort
• validity
• survey
• neuropsychological
• expert

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the many neuropsychologists who donated their time by completing the distributed survey. Neither this article nor the Martin, Schroeder, and Odland (2015) article would have been possible without their contributions.