OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to identify changes in neuropsychological validity assessment beliefs and practices relative to surveys of North American neuropsychologists conducted in 2015 and 2016, obtain a more nuanced understanding of such beliefs and practices, and examine salient validity assessment topics not addressed by previous surveys. METHODS: Adult focused neuropsychologists (n = 445) and neuropsychological validity assessment experts (n = 16) were surveyed regarding their perceptions and practices related to the following topics: (i) importance of validity testing
(ii) multiple performance validity test (PVT) administration and interpretation
(iii) suspected causes of invalidity
(iv) reporting on malingering
(v) assessment of examinees of diverse language, culture, and nation of origin
(vi) terminology
and (vii) most frequently utilized validity measures. RESULTS: There was general agreement, if not consensus, across multiple survey topics. The vast majority of neuropsychologists and experts view validity testing as mandatory in clinical and forensic evaluations, administer multiple PVTs regardless of setting, believe validity assessment to be important in the evaluation of all individuals including older adults and culturally diverse individuals, and view evaluations with few to no validity tests interspersed throughout the evaluation as being of lesser quality. Divergent opinions were also seen among respondents and between neuropsychologists and experts on some topics, including likely causes of invalidity and assessment and formal communication of malingering. CONCLUSIONS: Current results highlight the necessity of formal validity assessment within both clinical and forensic neuropsychological evaluations, and findings document current trends and reported practices within the field.