Abstract This article examines the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) in terms of the Daubert standards. The three majority opinions (i.e., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that constitute the so-called Daubert trilogy represented a sea change in judicial awareness of the relevance of empirical methodology in providing probative expert testimony in court. Specifically, they brought forth a set of factors that may be considered during trial to assess the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. The first section of the present article briefly describes the current state of negative impression management assessment in psycho-legal context, with particular reference to the development of the procedures and expectations for expert testimony. Next, Daubert factors are defined and applied, one by one, to IOP-29-based testimony. This led to the conclusion that the IOP-29 has been thoroughly and empirically tested in different contexts and countries, and across different psychopathological conditions (1st Daubert standard); it has been peer-reviewed and publications on it have showed continued growth in recent years (2nd Daubert standard); based on the many empirical studies, its error rate is potentially knowable (3rd Daubert standard); this information, along with standards for controlling its operation, are available in the IOP-29 Professional Manual (4th Daubert standard); there is growing evidence of the general acceptance that the IOP-29 has received within the scientific community currently and over the years (5th Daubert standard). Finally, recommendations are proposed on the use of the test within the forensic field.

Abstract Depression is frequently stated to cause cognitive deficits, though most studies evaluating cognitive performance in depression fail to account for performance validity. The present study investigated the associations of symptoms/diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) with objective neurocognitive performance before and after accounting for scores on multiple performance validity tests (PVTs). Five hundred eighty-five clinical outpatients referred for neuropsychological evaluation for assessment/diagnostic clarification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Patients completed a prospective test battery including the Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II), multiple freestanding and embedded PVTs, and multiple neurocognitive tests. Two MANOVAs compared cognitive performance across depressed and non-depressed examinees with valid data, and examinees with valid vs. invalid data. Spearman correlations and 13 hierarchical multiple linear regressions with BDI-II scores in block 1, freestanding PVTs in block 2, and embedded PVTs in block 3 with neurocognitive test performance as outcomes. MANOVAs showed depressed vs. non-depressed examinees did not meaningfully differ on neurocognitive tests, while those with valid vs. invalid data differed greatly. Depressive symptoms were not meaningfully associated with performance validity tests or the 13 cognitive performance variables. However, PVT scores shared 3.2% to 32.4% variance with cognitive performance. Neither diagnosis of MDD nor depressive symptoms were significantly associated with cognitive performance. Test engagement had strong associations with cognitive performance. The present study emphasizes the importance of accounting for performance validity when evaluating associations between depression and neurocognitive performance.