From what I have learned about the validity/malingering tests is quite simple. They ask you similar questions and compare the answers. If the answers are different, it can indicate faking or malingering. They also look for consistency in performance.

Unfortunately, the scoring psychologist will write the report based on his biases. I scored 48/50 and 49/50, almost perfect on the no malingering scale. They consider malingering when the score is 37/50 or lower. But, the Ph.D. neuro-psychologist claimed I was faking it because I scored very high in the intelligence scales and very low in the memory and processing speed scales. I also scored low in the depression scales meaning little indication of depression. He claimed I was showing memory and processing speed deficits because I was depressed.

My research showed what Lawyer's NPA said. High intelligence with low scores in other areas are strong signs of an organic injury well after the intelligence was developed and matured.

So, just do your best.

If the report is screwy like mine, a good attorney should be able to help.

btw, A good NPA can be very accurate. I have had two more since my first in 2002. The second in 2007 has almost identical result to the first and the third in 2014 was very similar.