Malingering tests = Junk science?

Forensic neuropsychological examinations with determination of malingering have tremendous social, legal, and economic consequences. Thousands of studies have been published that purport to validate methods to determine malingering in forensic settings based largely on about 50 embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs) and based on inconsistencies in the presentation of forensic examinees. Based on two recent comprehensive scientific reviews published in the journal Neuropsychology Review and on two related legal articles published and forthcoming in the Georgia Law Review, this presentation summarizes the main statistical and research methodological problems with neuropsychological determinations of malingering and shows that these determinations are not scientifically valid. Neuropsychological malingering determinations are thus a forensic junk science and the presentation will show why they do not meet the Daubert standard.