Leonhard Christoph
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, USA.
Neuropsychol Rev. 2023 Sep;33(3):653-657. doi: 10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2. Epub 2023 Aug 18.
The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.
布什博士、朱斯伯里博士和浮士德博士在本卷中的深刻评论，增强了本卷中两篇关于基于表现和症状效度测试（PVT和SVT）进行法医神经心理学伪装鉴定中统计和方法学问题的综述的影响力。在他的评论中，布什博士提出了诸多问题，其中包括这样的伪装鉴定是否仍可被视为符合作为神经心理学专家证言基础的法律达伯特标准这一重要问题。朱斯伯里博士主要关注统计问题，并认同统计综述中的两个关键点：正向似然性链接不是一种在数学上站得住脚的方法来合并多个PVT和SVT的结果，并且简单贝叶斯方法不适用于伪装鉴定。浮士德博士为法医神经心理学实践的影响增添了重要的叙述内容，并指出需要研究除伪装之外可能解释PVT和SVT失败的因素。这些评论更加突出了综述中提出的关于法医神经心理学伪装鉴定当前实践的科学基础的严重问题。
