Interpreting symptom validity test fails in forensic disability and related assessments: When the cry for help for one fail makes sense.

Dandachi-FitzGerald et al. (2022), published the article "Cry for help as a root cause of poor symptom validity: A critical note," in [Advance Online], arguing that the cry for help in forensic disability and related assessments is not a valid interpretation for poor symptom validity test results. This rebuttal contests the criticisms of the use of the cry for help in this context, as presented in Young (2019); "The Cry for help in a psychological injury and law: Concepts and review" that appeared in , Vol. 12, pp. 225-237. It calls for more programmatic research, for example, based on the cry for help questionnaire suggested by the author. In particular, it indicates, for example, that one SVT test failure in a test battery constitutes an assessment result that could allow for attributing the cry for help, everything else being equal. It suggests that the adaptational theory explains the cry for help as much as malingering. It suggests practice and court recommendations that will allow better rebuttals of unethical assessors who overuse/misuse/abuse the cry for help interpretation of poor symptom validity test results in forensic disability and related assessments.