Abstract
The high prevalence of malingering that exists in clinical and forensic neuropsychological evaluation contexts highlights the importance of response validity in any routine evaluation or forensic examination. Yet, contrary to the common assumption that malingering represents a uniform construct, research demonstrates that patients and examinees may present themselves in a less-than-forthright manner in a variety of ways, whether through the exaggeration of physical, cognitive, and/or psychological symptoms; noncredible cognitive performances; or both. In this chapter, we present the cases of Mr. X and Ms. Y. While both examinees' presentations were regarded to be most consistent with malingering, the quality and nature of their noncredible presentations were quite distinct from one another. Through the juxtaposition of these two cases, the authors aim to illustrate that 'malingering' can come in various forms, and that the multifaceted nature of noncredible presentations warrants the use of symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) before interpreting neuropsychological test profiles as an accurate reflection of examinees' functioning.