n a recent case I testified in, I reviewed an opposing expert’s report where the psychological test results were clearly marked invalid—yet those data were still interpreted as though they meant something.

When bad data go to court, justice suffers.

In forensic psychology, the integrity of our conclusions depends on valid data. Once a protocol is deemed invalid, continuing to interpret it isn’t science—it’s storytelling.

Invalid data aren’t just meaningless—they’re misleading. Courts deserve experts who follow the evidence, not the outcome.