Two Views of Invalid Response Set and Malingering Attributions in Forensic Assessment: Credibility and Non-Credibility.

This article reviews two major sets of six articles on malingering and invalid response set, which have diametrically opposite conclusions on the value of performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs) in forensic and related disability assessments (FDRA). First, we review the six-article series by the Leonhards, which takes the stance that PVTs and SVTs lack sufficient conceptual and empirical support to be utilized in FDRA. More specifically, the Leonhards criticize the circularity in using PVTs both as predictors and outcome criterion variables. Also, they argue that PVTs are highly correlated and collinear. However, we note that the Leonhards refer to PVTs as "malingering" tests, which they are not. Next, our article summarizes Young six-article series on invalid response sets, which (a) provides revised definitions of key terms; (b) proposes a new multivariate cutoff for invalid performance tied to the number of PVTs administered ("the 30% rule"); and (c) reviews research on the base rate of invalid response sets (generally below 30%). Finally, the present article reviews additional papers criticizing the Leonhards' approach, and introduces new data that support the standard approach. We recommend continued conceptual and empirical refinement, while re-affirming the utility of PVTs and SVTs in FDRA.