Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994). Statistics notes: Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ, 309(6947), 102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Bender, S. D., & Frederick, R. I. (2018). Neuropsychological models of feigned cognitive deficits. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 42–60). The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar 

Berthelson, L., Mulchan, S. S., Odland, A. P., Miller, L. J., & Mittenberg, W. (2013). False positive diagnosis of malingering due to the use of multiple effort tests. Brain Injury, 27(7–8), 909–916. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.793400

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bilder, R. M., Sugar, C. A., & Hellemann, G. S. (2014). Cumulative false positive rates given multiple performance validity tests: Commentary on Davis and Millis (2014) and Larrabee (2014). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(8), 1212–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.969774

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Black, J., Necrason, B., & Omasta, N. (2016). Refining the use of likelihood ratios for determining non-credible effort (Abstract). Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(6), 573.1-573. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw042.01

Article  Google Scholar 

Boone, K. B., & Lu, P. (2003). Noncredible cognitive performance in the context of severe brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(2), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.17.2.244.16497

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chafetz, M. D. (2022). Deception is different: Negative validity test findings do not provide “evidence” for “good effort.” The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 36(6), 1244–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1840633

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dawes, R. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1966). Mixed group validation: A method for determining the validity of diagnostic signs without using criterion groups. Psychological Bulletin, 66(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023584

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Digby, P. G. N. (1983). Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Biometrics, 39(3), 753–757. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531104

Article  Google Scholar 

Frederick, R. I. (2000). Mixed group validation: A method to address the limitations of criterion group validation in research on malingering detection. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.432

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Frederick, R. I. (2015). Too much information: Problems using multiple malingering tests [Invited lecture]. American Psychology-Law Conference, San Diego, CA.

Jewsbury, P. A. (2019). Diagnostic test score validation with a fallible criterion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(8), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618817785

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jewsbury, P. A., & Bowden, S. C. (2013). Considerations underlying the use of mixed group validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030063

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jewsbury, P. A., & Bowden, S. C. (2014). A description of mixed group validation. Assessment, 21(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112473176

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Larrabee, G. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701494987

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Larrabee, G. J. (2022). Synthesizing data to reach clinical conclusions regarding validity status. In Schroeder, R. W., & Martin, P. K. (Eds.), Validity assessment in clinical neuropsychological practice: Evaluating and managing noncredible performance. New York: The Guilford Press.

Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., & Meyers, J. E. (2019). Use of multiple performance and symptom validity measures: Determining the optimal per test cutoff for determination of invalidity, analysis of skew, and inter-test correlations in valid and invalid performance groups. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(8), 1354–1372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1614227

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Leonhard, C. (2023a). Review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering from validity tests: Part I: Statistical issues. Neuropsychology Review.

Leonhard, C. (2023b). Review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering from validity tests: Part II: Methodological issues. Neuropsychology Review.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (third edition). New York: MacMillan.

Meyers, J. E., Miller, R. M., Thompson, L. M., Scalese, A. M., Allred, B. C., Rupp, Z. W., ... & Junghyun Lee, A. (2014). Using likelihood ratios to detect invalid performance with performance validity measures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acu001

Sherman, E. M., Slick, D. J., & Iverson, G. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa019

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sweet, J. J., Heilbronner, R. L., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., Boone, K. B., ... & Conference Participants. (2021). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(6), 1053–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036

Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (2001). True score theory: The traditional method. In H. Wainer and D. Thissen, (Eds.), Test Scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604729

Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Article  Google Scholar