The application of trauma-informed principles to forensic mental health assessment has recently gained scholarly attention (Goldenson et al., 2022; Goldenson, 2025b). Central to this framework is the expectation that forensic mental health professionals possess a nuanced understanding of the prevalence and psychological impact of trauma among evaluees, and that they apply this knowledge to adapt assessment procedures in ways that promote dignity, autonomy, and fairness while also enhancing the quality and accuracy of the data collected. A persistent challenge in both criminal and civil contexts is the potential for feigned posttraumatic stress disorder. One underexplored ethical tension involves balancing the commitment to psychological safety, a core tenet of trauma-informed practice, with the use of assessment strategies designed to detect noncredible responding. These strategies may be experienced by evaluees as confrontational, invalidating, or deceptive. This article explores this tension and examines how forensic evaluators can best uphold trauma-informed principles while conducting scientifically rigorous evaluations, including those involving suspected feigning. The importance of a multi-source, multi-method approach is emphasized. When data appear inconsistent, evaluators should engage in critical thinking and contextual analysis rather than defaulting to assumptions of deception.
