Search

Objective: Some attorneys claim that to adequately cross examine neuropsychological experts, they require direct access to protected test information, rather than having test data analyzed by retained neuropsychological experts. The objective of this paper is to critically examine whether direct access to protected test materials by attorneys is indeed necessary, appropriate, and useful to the trier-of-fact. Method: Examples are provided of the types of nonscientific misinformation that occur when attorneys, who lack adequate training in testing, attempt to independently interpret neurocognitive/psychological test data. Results: Release of protected test information to attorneys introduces inaccurate information to the trier of fact, and jeopardizes future use of tests because non-psychologists are not ethically bound to protect test content. Conclusion: The public policy underlying the right of attorneys to seek possibly relevant documents should not outweigh the damage to tests and resultant misinformation that arise when protected test information is released directly to attorneys. The solution recommended by neuropsychological/psychological organizations and test publishers is to have protected psychological test information exchanged directly and only between clinical psychologist/neuropsychologist experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To provide education regarding the critical importance of test security for neuropsychological and psychological tests, and to establish recommendations for best practices for maintaining test security in forensic, clinical, teaching, and research settings. Previous test security guidelines were not adequately specified. Neuropsychologists practicing in a broad range of settings collaborated to develop detailed and specific guidance regarding test security to best ensure continued viability of neuropsychological and psychological tests. Implications of failing to maintain test security for both the practice of neuropsychology and for society at large were identified. Types of test data that can be safely disclosed to nonpsychologists are described. Specific procedures can be followed that will minimize risk of invalidating future use of neuropsychological and psychological measures. Clinical neuropsychologists must commit to protecting sensitive neuropsychological and psychological test information from exposure to nonpsychologists, and now have specific recommendations that will guide that endeavor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychologists must advocate for more stringent legal protection of psychological test materials because using standardized tests is the most distinguishing and exclusive feature of psychological evaluation practice. With the rapid growth in forensic consulting, unrestrained discovery of raw data and psychological test materials during litigation erodes the reliability and validity of the test procedures. Dissemination of test materials reduces the interpretive value of the tests and promotes cheating, turning our best methods into junk science in the courtroom. This article proposes to reform the law and to revise the professional ethics of psychologists consistent with the strong public policy of test security as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Detroit Edison v. NLRB (1979). Currently, federal courts and about 20 states protect psychological tests as a unique methodology, with some states enacting a psychologist nondisclosure privilege/duty to safeguard test materials from wrongful disclosure. The record management practices of psychologists vary considerably and are vulnerable to legal attack unless psychologists are aware of legal arguments to protect test materials from wrongful release. Although this article does not offer legal advice, it describes the most common records management problem confronting neuropsychologists and some practical solutions to the raw data problem. Best practice for protecting psychological tests requires the psychologist to understand the law and to assert the psychologist nondisclosure privilege. Other strategies are presented and evaluated. Organized psychology and the legal community should advocate for a uniform rule to protect the objectivity, fairness, and integrity psychological methods in litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Executive functions are difficult to assess in preschool children, yet the preschool period is particularly important, both in the development of behavioral control and of the brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex. Several tasks were adapted from developmental and neuroscience literature and then administered to 98 preschool children (30-, 36-, 42-, 48- and 60-month age groups). Executive function task performance was related largely to age group, but not to sex or intelligence. These tasks, then, were sensitive in this age range and may be useful to delineate distinct cognitive profiles among preschool children with various neurological and developmental disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychologists must advocate for more stringent legal protection of psychological test materials because using standardized tests is the most distinguishing and exclusive feature of psychological evaluation practice. With the rapid growth in forensic consulting, unrestrained discovery of raw data and psychological test materials during litigation erodes the reliability and validity of the test procedures. Dissemination of test materials reduces the interpretive value of the tests and promotes cheating, turning our best methods into junk science in the courtroom. This article proposes to reform the law and to revise the professional ethics of psychologists consistent with the strong public policy of test security as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Detroit Edison v. NLRB (1979). Currently, federal courts and about 20 states protect psychological tests as a unique methodology, with some states enacting a psychologist nondisclosure privilege/duty to safeguard test materials from wrongful disclosure. The record management practices of psychologists vary considerably and are vulnerable to legal attack unless psychologists are aware of legal arguments to protect test materials from wrongful release. Although this article does not offer legal advice, it describes the most common records management problem confronting neuropsychologists and some practical solutions to the raw data problem. Best practice for protecting psychological tests requires the psychologist to understand the law and to assert the psychologist nondisclosure privilege. Other strategies are presented and evaluated. Organized psychology and the legal community should advocate for a uniform rule to protect the objectivity, fairness, and integrity psychological methods in litigation.