Scholarlink

<p>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

SVTs and PVTs are Not Junk Science: A Response to Leonhard and Leonhard

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月10日

查看全文
  • Harald Merckelbach,
  • Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald

摘要

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.