In psychological injury and related forensic evaluations, two types of tests are commonly used to assess Negative Response Bias (NRB): Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). SVTs assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms, whereas PVTs assess the credibility of observed performance on cognitive tasks. Compared to the large and ever-growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated self-report SVTs available to professionals for assessing symptom validity. In addition, while several studies have examined how to combine and integrate the results of multiple independent PVTs, there are few studies to date that have addressed the combination and integration of information obtained from multiple self-report SVTs. The Special Issue ofPsychological Injury and Lawintroduced in this article aims to help fill these gaps in the literature by providing readers with detailed information about the convergent and incremental validity, strengths and weaknesses, and applicability of a number of selected measures of NRB under different conditions and in different assessment contexts. Each of the articles in this Special Issue focuses on a particular self-report SVT or set of SVTs and summarizes their conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and possible cut scores and relative hit rates. Here, we review the psychometric properties of the 19 selected SVTs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we make tentative proposals for the field to consider regarding the number of SVTs to be used in an assessment, the number of SVT failures required to invalidate test results, and the issue of redundancy when selecting multiple SVTs for an assessment.

This article describes the development of the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP–29), a new, short, paper-and-pencil, self-administered measure of feigned mental and cognitive disorders. Four clinical comparison simulation studies were conducted. Study 1 (n = 451) selected the items and produced an index of potential feigning. Study 2 (n = 331) scaled this index to produce a probability score, and examined its psychometric properties. Study 3 tested the generalizability of Study 2's findings with 2 additional samples (ns = 128 and 90). Results supported the utility of the IOP–29 for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Validity was demonstrated in feigning mild traumatic brain injury, psychosis, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression. Within the independent samples of Studies 2 and 3, the brief IOP–29 performed similarly to the MMPI–2 and Personality Assessment Inventory, and perhaps better than the Test of Memory Malingering. Classifications within these samples with base rates of .5 produced sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and negative predictive power statistics of about .80. Further research is needed testing the IOP–29 in ecologically valid field studies.