Post-Daubert Admissibility of Scientific Evidence on Malingering of
B. Vallabhajosula and W. G. vanGorp,
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
29(2): 207-216, 2001.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) the
Supreme Court held that evidence must be "reliable" to be admissible and for scientific evidence
"evidentiary reliability" is based on scientific validity. This article addresses the question "Do the
Rey 15-Item Test ('FIT'), the Test of Memory Malingering ('TOMM'), and the Validity Indicator
Profile ('VIP') likely meet the Daubert standard for admissibility of scientific
evidence?" Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV,
respectively), and base rates of 30 and 15 percent were calculated for each test. Given the existing
literature on malingering and the implications of a misclassification of malingering, we discuss the
findings for each of the three tests using a PPV >= 80 percent with a base rate of malingering
of H<=30. Our analyses indicate that the Rey 15-FIT fails to meet this standard of scientific
validity. In contrast, the TOMM shows high specificity and PPV, and our findings suggest
cautious optimism regarding the VIP. These results are discussed within the context of the courts'
guidelines for the Daubert standard.