Abstract
A reflection on the exchange between Larrabee et al. (2017) and Nichols (2017) is provided by a clinical psychologist who co-authored an early critique questioning the validity of the FBS as a measure of over reporting and who, based on subsequent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the FBS in identifying non-credible report of somatic and cognitive complaints, changed his opinion regarding the utility of the FBS/FBS-r as a symptom validity measure. Given the accumulated evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the FBS/FBS-r as a symptom validity measure, reasons for the continued debate over the validity and utility of the FBS/FBS-r are discussed.
Keywords:
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Nathaniel Nelson, Ph.D., ABPP CN for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this reflection.