Neuropsychologists have long understood that valid examinee performance is needed in order to understand the constructs of interest that are at the heart of clinical and forensic evaluations. The assessment of performance validity has evolved over time, from very rudimentary and subjective clinical impressions of examinee task engagement to psychometrically based, multi-method, algorithm-driven, and consensus-informed approaches. Christoph Leonhard has further advanced that evolution in a meaningful way, forcing us to reconsider much of what we thought we knew about the psychometric assessment of performance validity. Although a structured, systematic, and objective approach to validity assessment is necessary, Leonhard has brought to our attention some significant concerns that need to be addressed. This commentary describes professional, ethical, and legal implications of Leonhard’s articles. Through an ongoing process of examining, revising, and improving our methods and procedures, we will be better positioned to provide services of value to those we serve. Leonhard has provided an opportunity for us to do just that.

神经心理学家很早就认识到，为了理解临床和法医评估核心的兴趣结构，需要有效的考生表现。随着时间的推移，对表现有效性的评估不断发展，从对考生任务参与度的非常基本和主观的临床印象到基于心理测量、多方法、算法驱动和共识知情的方法。克里斯托夫·莱昂哈德（Christoph Leonhard）以一种有意义的方式进一步推进了这一演变，迫使我们重新考虑我们自以为了解的绩效有效性心理测量评估的大部分内容。尽管有必要采用结构化、系统和客观的有效性评估方法，但莱昂哈德提请我们注意一些需要解决的重大问题。本评论描述了莱昂哈德文章的专业、道德和法律含义。通过持续检查、修改和改进我们的方法和程序，我们将能够更好地为我们服务的对象提供有价值的服务。莱昂哈德为我们提供了实现这一目标的机会。