Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity, Response Bias, and Malingering: Official Position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law

Towards Balanced VA and SSA Policies in Psychological Injury Disability Assessment

“…However, evaluators do not avoid making a judgment on these matters when sufficient evidence allows for it. To conclude, Bush et al (2014) advised using a Bmultimethod, evidence-based validity assessment process that includes psychometric measures of validity^(p. 202). Young (2014b) provided resource material to Bush et al (2014) in order to help in their writing ASAPIL's position statement.…”

“…In this regard, Bush, Ruff, Troster, Barth, Koffler, Pliskin, Reynolds, and Silver (2005) and Heilbronner, Sweet, Morgan, Larrabee, Millis, and Conference Participants (2009) published position statements on the use of PVTs/SVTs in neuropsychological assessment. Under the auspices of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL), Bush, Heilbronner and Ruff (2014) broadened the scope of their prior position statements (Bush et al, 2005;Heilbronner et al, 2009) so that their new statement considers more than neuropsychological assessment; the revised version that they created also is applicable to assessments for PTSD and for chronic pain. In the following, I summarize the key points of the two articles.…”

“…It makes no specific test recommendations; the decision on which tests to use in an assessment is the responsibility of each practitioner. Bush et al (2014) prepared the official position statement. It promotes ethical psychological practice in disability-related assessments in the forensic-legal contexts.…”

Neuroimaging as a biomarker in symptom validity and performance validity testing

“…Furthermore some individuals may simply not be sufficiently engaged or disinterested in the testing process to yield valid test results (DeRight and Jorgensen 2014). Are symptom or performance validity test (SVT or PVT) procedures the answer for determining the validity of neuropsychological assessment findings (Bush et al 2005(Bush et al , 2014Heilbronner et al 2009)? This question has recently been addressed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) which is the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. On April 10, 2015 the IOM published its findings on BPsychological Testing in the Service of Disability Determination^, downloadable at: http://www.…”

Framing the Results: Assessment of Response Bias Through Select Self-Report Measures in Psychological Injury Evaluations

“…The adversarial nature of the courts requires a level of objectivity in establishing dysfunction that is often not required in treatment settings. Several professional organizations have taken the lead in establishing practice guidelines that dictate the necessity of including response bias measures in forensically oriented evaluations, including the National Academy of Neuropsychology (Bush et al, 2005), American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology , and more recently, the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (Bush, Heilbronner, & Ruff, 2014). Given the inherent potential for self-reported symptoms to be misrepresented, it is important that self-report assessment measures include ways to measure response bias.…”