Symptom Validity Testing
Lee H. Ensalada
Search for other papers by Lee H. Ensalada in
Current site
Google Scholar
Restricted access


Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.

  • 1.

    Binder LM, Pankratz L. Neuropsychological evidence of a factitious memory complaint. J Clin Exper Neuropsychol. 1987; 9:167171.

  • 2.

    Frederick RI, Sabbath SD, Johnston JD, Powel J. Validation of a detector of response bias on a force-choice test of nonverbal ability. Neuropsychol. 1994; 8:118125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Lockhart J, Satya-Murti S. Symptom exaggeration and symptom validity testing in persons with medically unexplained neurologic presentations. Neuro Clin Pract. 2015; 5(1):1724. (Link

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Pankratz L. Procedures for the assessment and treatment of functional sensory deficits. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1979; 47:409410.

  • 5.

    Pankratz L, Binder L, Mand Wilcox L. Assessment of an exaggerated somatosensory deficit with symptom validity assessment [Letter]. Arch Neurol. 1987; 44:798.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Pankratz L, Fausti S, Peed S. A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in the hysterical or malingering patient. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1975; 43:421422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rogers R, Harrell EH, Liff CD. Feigning neuropsychological impairment: a critical review of methodological and clinical considerations. Clin Psychol Rev. 1993; 13:255274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 881 881 824
Full Text Views 27 27 1
PDF Downloads 0 0 0