Search

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]

Purpose: There is increasing demand from the public for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, and the US Food and Drug Administration limits the type of health-related claims DTC tests can market. Some DTC companies provide raw genotyping data to customers if requested, and these raw data may include variants occurring in genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics to be reported as incidental/secondary findings. The purpose of this study was to review the outcome of requests for clinical confirmation of DTC results that were received by our laboratory and to analyze variant classification concordance., Methods: We identified 49 patient samples received for further testing that had previously identified genetic variants reported in DTC raw data. For each case identified, information pertaining to the outcome of clinical confirmation testing as well as classification of the DTC variant was collected and analyzed., Results: Our analyses indicated that 40% of variants in a variety of genes reported in DTC raw data were false positives. In addition, some variants designated with the "increased risk" classification in DTC raw data or by a third-party interpretation service were classified as benign at Ambry Genetics as well as several other clinical laboratories, and are noted to be common variants in publicly available population frequency databases., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the importance of confirming DTC raw data variants in a clinical laboratory that is well versed in both complex variant detection and classification.