Performance Validity Testing 

3.0 CE Credits - Member $60 | Nonmember $90

Target Audience: Neuropsychologists and trainees
Instructional Level: Intermediate

NAN members login and non-members create an account to:

The PVT Collection includes the below webinars: 


Assessing for Noncredible Presentations in ADHD Across the Lifespan


Julie A. Suhr, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training
Ohio University

In this workshop, concerns about noncredible presentations of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) will be discussed. The workshop will include review of the existing research literature on noncredible presentations of ADHD in both children and adults. The base rates of noncredible presentation will be discussed. Evidence that assessment for noncredible presentation is currently lacking in most psychoeducational evaluations will also be presented. The workshop will include discussion of both noncredible self-report (including prior and current symptoms and impairment) and noncredible behavior on cognitive tests. Empirical evidence for the use of both Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in ADHD assessment across the lifespan will be reviewed, and some “best practices” based on this literature will be presented. There will also be attention given to development of new SVTs and PVTS for use in ADHD assessment, with discussion of research methodology relevant to both child and adult assessments.

After the session, participants will be able to:
1. Describe the need for assessment for noncredible presentations in both child and adult ADHD.
2. Explain the empirical support for SVT and PVT use in child and adult ADHD assessment.
3. Describe methods for development of new SVTs and PVTS for use on ADHD assessment across the lifespan.

The Use of Positive and Negative Validity Findings in Clinical Versus Forensic Cases


Michael Chafetz, Ph.D., ABPP 
Algiers Neurobehavioral Resource, LLC

The central question of this workshop is whether negative validity test findings should be used in the aggregate along with positive test findings for the determination of a case of illness-deception (ID), as it was asserted by Frederick (2015) and Black, Necrason, and Omasta (2016). A comparison of the use of validity tests versus other kinds of medical and psychological tests is made, with findings suggesting that ID is fundamentally different from other constructs/diseases in evidence-based medicine, psychology, and neuropsychology because deception about illness involves a deliberate process that may involve coaching, research, and/or focusing the deception on one aspect of functioning (e.g., slowness). A case study is presented to consider how decisions about other medical and neuropsychological problems are enhanced by considering positive and negative findings, how likely findings are to be manipulated by the patient, and how well the assertion that both positive and negative validity test findings must be used together in the aggregate stands up to comparative scrutiny. The fundamental assumption that a negative test finding concerning ID represents good effort is flawed, as it simply represents a lack of evidence of ID which cannot, in turn, be construed as evidence of lack of deception. Commentary is provided on best practice in neuropsychology regarding use of validity tests.

After the session, participants will be able to:
1. Explain how positive and negative test results are used together to determine the probability of a given condition of interest in medicine and psychology.
2. Compare the changes in posterior probabilities from positive versus negative test findings for a condition of interest.
3. Describe how the case example supports using only positive test findings in a determination of illness-deception.

Julie A. Suhr, Ph.D.,
is Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at Ohio University. She received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Iowa in 1994. She completed a year-long internship in clinical neuropsychology at Brown University in 1994, and 3 years of postdoctoral training in clinical neuropsychology in the Department of Neurology, University of Iowa College of Medicine in 1994-1997. She has published over 80 peer-reviewed articles, a sole authored book on psychological assessment in 2015, and a co-edited book on clinical assessment and diagnosis in 2019, as well as over a dozen book chapters. She is a Fellow of the Society for Clinical Neuropsychology (APA Division 40) and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.  

Dr. Michael Chafetz
is a Board Certified clinical neuropsychologist in independent practice in New Orleans.  His research interests have focused on the validity of Social Security disability examinations, where he has sought to understand how validity testing operates in low functioning claimants.  This research led to an initiative to help the Social Security system produce more accurate assessments.  In these endeavors, he consulted with a United States Senator and the Office of the Inspector General to bring attention to this research in the Social Security system.  More recently, he consulted with the Swedish Social Security system to help bring about needed changes in assessment. His current research interests include the connection between factitious disorder and malingering and in the probability calculations you will see in this talk.