The field of psychological injury and law is a vibrant one. Research and practice in the field is heavily dependant on careful definition of terms, reliable and valid empirical investigation, and appropriate psychometric test formation and application. The journal Psychological Injury and Law is dedicated to this standard. In order to place the field on firmer scientific grounds, it is imperative that the field come to terms with its most gripping outstanding issues, including the best tests to use in assessments and their proper interpretation. A significant hurdle to this end is related to malingering and related attributions, such as test invalidity. There are different definitions of the terms and different ways used to combine performance validity tests and symptom validity tests that are administered in forensic disability and related assessments (FDRA). The field is marked by an adversarial divide, and different test cut scores and aggregating algorithms over test failures in administered test batteries complicate reaching a consensus on these matters and bridging this adversarial divide.

To this point in the evolution of the field of psychological injury and law, the various position and practice statements and formulations in the field (e.g., Sherman et al., 2020; Sweet et al., 2021) have not offered definitive guidelines on many crucial research and practice areas, and this concern applies especially to the domain of malingering. The field needs an integrative work on the topic of malingering that defines well the terms involved, from malingering to feigning to symptom exaggeration. The field needs a common acceptable cut point for determining case test invalidity or aggregate test failure in administered batteries in FDRA. There are more liberal and more conservative ones that have been suggested, such as the commonly used ≥ 2 PVT failures in an administered test battery in FDRA or failing more than that (e.g., 3 of them; Larrabee et al., 2019). Also, there are aggregating malingering determination systems in use in the field, such as the malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) and its revision (Sherman et al., 2020; Slick et al., 1999, respectively).

There are major estimates of the base rate of malingering and related attributions in FDRA, but these differing estimates provide a critical exemplar of the differences in approaches and findings in keeping with the adversarial divide in the field (Larrabee et al., 2009, 40 + / − 10%; Young, 2015, 15 + / − 15%). The field includes recent co-edited books on the topic (Boone, 2021; Horton & Reynolds, 2020; Rogers & Bender, 2018; Schroeder & Martin, 2021). There are speciality guidelines for forensic psychologists that complement the American Psychological Association (APA) ethics code (APA, 2013, 2017, respectively). There are numerous articles on the workings of Daubert (1993) on the admissibility of good as opposed to poor or junk science in court.

The journal Psychological Injury and Law received a book-length manuscript on malingering topics that addresses all the issues mentioned in this introduction to the question and more. The manuscripts consist of a collection of 6 articles, each with two parts, with the equivalent of 12 chapters in a book. Manuscripts involving 12 works are usually published as a book. Journals might also publish special issues with these many contributions. However, the manuscript received was written by one group of authors, with the same lead author in every case. The journal had to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of publishing the 6 submissions in its pages and decided that the field is in such disarray on this most central question for the field that it should be published as independently reviewed articles. The 6 submissions underwent the standard peer-review process, and, in the next issues of the journal, the reader will find 2 special topics on malingering, with 3 articles in each case. The submissions are presently in peer review, and the ultimate disposition if the articles might change relative to the description herein.

The first part of the first article in the 6-article series addresses definitional issues. The second part of this article makes a novel proposal for the appropriate test invalidity threshold in administered PVT batteries in FDRA. The next 3 articles, fully half of the 6 articles total, review the base rate of malingering and related attributions in the extant literature on the question. It found 77 PVT and 5 SVT studies in these regards, and the results were analyzed from multiple perspectives and criteria. These 3 articles also include tabular presentation of the tens of studies reviewed in this series of articles, which allows for in-depth analysis by the authors. Of the two major estimates in the field on the base rate of malingering, one was more clearly supported by this in-depth analysis. The first part of the fifth article in the series on malingering topics examines critically the MND system, in particular. The second part of that article presents work on ethics and court in the area as guidelines for research and practice in the field. The last article in the series provides an integrated position statement/practice guideline for work in the field. Also, it indicates required research directions for the field.

Readers are invited to write comments, responses, and rebuttals to the specific contents and recommendations of the 6-article series on malingering topics in the journal Psychological Injury and Law. We are pleased to host the 6 articles and will be equally pleased to receive and publish peer-reviewed articles that discuss them. We hope to have a vibrant exchange among the authors of the 6-article series, its supporters and its detractors, those who oppose it, etc. At the same time, we hope that the exchange will lead to even better progress and ideas for the field, which is direly needed.