Abstract
Leonhard and Leonhard (2025) argue that Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) constitute a form of junk science. This qualification stands in sharp contrast to the breadth and depth of the scientific work on validity tests. Leonhard and Leonhard treat these tests as if they were equivalent to polygraph evidence, a move that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the conceptual and empirical foundations of these instruments. More than a year ago, we invited Leonhard and Leonhard to provide case law examples -if only a few- demonstrating that SVTs and/or PVTs contributed to risky legal decisions. So far, they have not been willing or able to cite a single instance. We therefore reiterate our invitation: show us the cases.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 11 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Psychological Injury and Law |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 10 Mar 2026 |
Keywords
- Performance validity tests Symptom validity tests Expert witnesses Junk science
- GENERAL ACCEPTANCE
- TESTIMONY
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'SVTs and PVTs are Not Junk Science: A Response to Leonhard and Leonhard'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver