{"title":"One hundred and ten fundamentals of performance validity tests in neuropsychological forensic disability and related assessment III: Core sources.","authors":"Gerald Young, Jason R Soble, Konstantine Zakzanis","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2560538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This third of five articles in the set on fundamentals on performance validity tests (PVTs) in forensic neuropsychological assessment reviews core sources toward elucidating a list of 100+ fundamentals that apply to forensic neuropsychological assessment. PVTs are standardized psychometric tests especially aimed at determining the extent of examinee underperformance, to the point that their cognitive test performance can be deemed invalid, and not representative of their genuine abilities. The sources reviewed in the article include a six-article series by the Young group; position statements, especially that of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology; ethics and guideline documents, especially the American and Canadian ethic codes and the American Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology; as well as critical reviews, including those of leading authors in practice and on the topic of biases. The article provides summary commentaries that will be useful for trainees as well as psychologists working in the field. The article supports continued use of PVTs in forensic neuropsychological assessment, albeit with standard caution, and with keeping up to date on the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2560538","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This third of five articles in the set on fundamentals on performance validity tests (PVTs) in forensic neuropsychological assessment reviews core sources toward elucidating a list of 100+ fundamentals that apply to forensic neuropsychological assessment. PVTs are standardized psychometric tests especially aimed at determining the extent of examinee underperformance, to the point that their cognitive test performance can be deemed invalid, and not representative of their genuine abilities. The sources reviewed in the article include a six-article series by the Young group; position statements, especially that of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology; ethics and guideline documents, especially the American and Canadian ethic codes and the American Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology; as well as critical reviews, including those of leading authors in practice and on the topic of biases. The article provides summary commentaries that will be useful for trainees as well as psychologists working in the field. The article supports continued use of PVTs in forensic neuropsychological assessment, albeit with standard caution, and with keeping up to date on the literature.
期刊介绍:
pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.