Malingering assessment occupies a uniquely high-risk position in criminal court. As forensic psychologists serving as criminal court experts, our opinions regarding response style, symptom validity, and credibility are often subjected to intense adversarial scrutiny. Unlike many other forensic opinions, malingering assessments directly implicate perceived honesty, intent, and motivation, making them particularly vulnerable to mischaracterization during cross-examination.
Delivering a defensible malingering assessment requires far more than administering symptom validity tests. As forensic psychologists, we must integrate empirically supported measures, structured reasoning, cultural competence, and forensic communication that anticipates how findings will be challenged in court. In criminal proceedings, the central question is not whether recognized instruments were used, but whether we can defend the methodology, interpretation, and limits of our conclusions under pressure.