Forensic neuropsychological examinations to detect malingering in patients with neurocognitive, physical, and psychological dysfunction have tremendous social, legal, and economic importance. Thousands of studies have been published to develop and validate methods to forensically detect malingering based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests. This is Part II of a two-part review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering based on validity tests. The Part I companion paper explored key statistical issues. Part II examines related methodological issues through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and reanalysis of findings from prior validity test validation studies. Methodological issues examined include the distinction between analog simulation and forensic studies, the effect of excluding too-close-to-call (TCTC) cases from analyses, the distinction between criterion-related and construct validation studies, and the application of the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) in all Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) validation studies published within approximately the first 20 years following its initial publication to assess risk of bias. Findings include that analog studies are commonly confused for forensic validation studies, and that construct validation studies are routinely presented as if they were criterion-reference validation studies. After accounting for the exclusion of TCTC cases, actual classification accuracy was found to be well below claimed levels. QUADAS-2 results revealed that extant TOMM validation studies all had a high risk of bias, with not a single TOMM validation study with low risk of bias. Recommendations include adoption of well-established guidelines from the biomedical diagnostics literature for good quality criterion-referenced validation studies and examination of implications for malingering determination practices. Design of future studies may hinge on the availability of an incontrovertible reference standard of the malingering status of examinees.

用于检测神经认知、身体和心理功能障碍患者的装病行为的法医神经心理学检查具有巨大的社会、法律和经济重要性。已经发表了数千项研究，以开发和验证从法医角度检测诈病的方法，主要基于大约 50 项有效性测试，包括嵌入式和独立的性能和症状有效性测试。这是对基于有效性测试的诈病法医预测中的统计和方法问题的两部分回顾的第二部分。第一部分配套论文探讨了关键的统计问题。第二部分通过概念分析、统计模拟和对先前有效性测试验证研究结果的重新分析来审查相关的方法论问题。检查的方法论问题包括模拟模拟和法医研究之间的区别、从分析中排除“太接近的情况”(TCTC) 案例的效果、标准相关研究和构造验证研究之间的区别以及修订后的质量评估的应用诊断准确性研究工具 (QUADAS-2) 在首次发表后大约前 20 年内发表的所有记忆欺骗测试 (TOMM) 验证研究中都有使用，以评估偏倚风险。研究结果包括，模拟研究通常与法医验证研究相混淆，并且构建验证研究通常被视为标准参考验证研究。在排除 TCTC 案例后，发现实际分类准确性远低于声称的水平。 QUADAS-2 结果显示，现有的 TOMM 验证研究均具有高偏倚风险，没有一项 TOMM 验证研究具有低偏倚风险。建议包括采用生物医学诊断文献中完善的指南，以进行高质量标准参考验证研究，并检查对装病测定实践的影响。未来研究的设计可能取决于是否有一个无可争议的关于考生装病状况的参考标准。