Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: Exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs

Forensic neuropsychology studies usually address either cognitive effort or psychological response validity. Whether these are distinct constructs is unclear. In 122 participants evaluated in a compensation-seeking context, the present Exploratory Factor Analysis examined whether forced-choice cognitive effort measures (Victoria Symptom Validity Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Letter Memory Test) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition (MMPI-2) validity scales (L, F K, FBS, Fp, RBS, Md, Dsr2, S) load on independent factors. Regardless of factor rotation strategy (orthogonal or oblique), four response validity factors emerged by means of both Principal Components Analysis (82.7% total variance) and Principal-Axis Factor Analysis (74.1% total variance). The four factors were designated as follows: Factor 1, with large loadings from L, K. and S-underreporting of psychological symptoms; Factor II, with large loadings from FBS, RBS, and Md-overreporting of neurotic symptoms- Factor 111, with large loadings from VSVT, TOMM, and LMT-insufficient cognitive effort; and Factor IV, with the largest loadings from F, Fp, and Dst-2-overreporting of psychotic/rarely endorsed symptoms. Results reflect the heterogeneity of response validity in forensic samples referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Administration of both cognitive effort measures and psychological validity scales is imperative to accurate forensic neuropsychological assessment.