A few years ago, an article describing the current status of Symptom Validity Assessment (SVA) practices and beliefs in European countries reported that there was little research activity in Italy (Merten et al., 2013). The same article also highlighted that Italian practitioners were less inclined to use Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in their assessments, compared with their colleagues from other major European countries. Considering that several articles on malingering and SVA have been published by Italian authors in recent years, we concluded that an update of the practices and beliefs of Italian professionals regarding malingering and SVA would be beneficial. Accordingly, from a larger survey that examined general psychological assessment practices and beliefs of Italian professionals, we extracted a subset of items specifically related to malingering and SVA and analyzed the responses of a sample of Italian psychologists who have some experience with malingering-related assessments. Taken together, the results of our analyses indicated that even though our respondents tend to use SVTs and PVTs relatively often in their evaluations, at this time, they likely trust more their own personal observations, impressions, and overall clinical judgment, in their SVA practice. Additionally, our results also indicated that Italian practitioners with some familiarity with malingering-related evaluations consider malingering to occur in about one-third of psychological assessments in which the evaluee might have an interest in overreporting.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required psychologists to adopt measures like physical distancing and mask wearing, though other safety procedures such as travel restrictions or prohibitions on in-person practice and research have fostered the use of tele-health tools. In this article, we review options for using the Rorschach task via videoconference and provide preliminary data from using a new electronic app for remote R-PAS administration to determine whether the remote administration in an electronic form yields different information than in-person administration with the cards in hand. As a pilot study, our focus is on the “first factor” of all Rorschach scores, i.e., complexity. Data were collected from 60 adult Italian community volunteers, and statistical analyses evaluated the extent to which the average complexity score significantly departed from R-PAS normative expectations (SS = 100), accompanied by Bayesian likelihoods for supporting the null hypothesis. Results suggest that the general level of complexity shown by the test-takers when administered the Rorschach remotely with the new R-PAS app closely resembles that previously observed using “standard” in-person procedures. Tentative analyses of other R-PAS scores suggested normative departures that could be due to the effects of the app, testing at home, or responses to the pandemic. We offer recommendations for future research and discuss practical implications.