Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation? An interorganizational* position paper.

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.

Forensic neuropsychology: History and current status.

Objective:This review provides a summary of historical details and current practice activities related to Forensic Neuropsychology (FN). Under the auspices of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), the Forensic Neuropsychology Special Interest Group (FNSIG) views the FN as a subspecialty, which has developed over time as the straightforward result of more than 20 years of numerous publications, extensive continuing education, focused research and growth of forensic practice within neuropsychology. In this article, the FNSIG core work group documents and integrates information that is the basis of efforts to consolidate practice knowledge and facilitate attainment of forensic practice competencies by clinical neuropsychologists. Method:Overview of continuing education topics at professional conferences, search results that identify relevant books and peer-reviewed publications, as well as pertinent findings across years of large-scale national survey results. Results:Relevant evidence has shown for decades that FN is prominent within Clinical Neuropsychology as practiced in the United States and Canada. A majority of U.S. neuropsychologists have received FN training and provide forensic evaluation services. FN practice time per week is considerable for many practitioners, and across survey epochs has been shown to be increasing. Conclusion:The present review leads to the conclusion that in the interest of promoting the acquisition of competence, FN practice should remain a focal point of training and continuing education. Alternate routes to attain competence are discussed, as are ongoing professional activities that undoubtedly will ensure continued growth of, and interest in, the subspecialty of FN.

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores.

Objectives: Descriptive labels of performance test scores are a critical component of communicating outcomes of neuropsychological and psychological evaluations. Yet, no universally accepted system exists for assigning qualitative descriptors to scores in specific ranges. In addition, the definition and use of the term "impairment" lacks specificity and consensus. Consequently, test score labels and the denotation of impairment are inconsistently applied by clinicians, creating confusion among consumers of neuropsychological services, including referral sources, trainees, colleagues, and the judicial system. To reduce this confusion, experts in clinical and forensic neuropsychological and psychological assessment convened in a consensus conference at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). The goals of the consensus conference were to recommend (1) a system of qualitative labels to describe results from performance-based tests with normal and non-normal distributions and (2) a definition of impairment and its application in individual case determinations. Results: The goals of the consensus conference were met resulting in specific recommendations for the application of uniform labels for performance tests and for the definition of impairment, which are described in this paper. In addition, included in this consensus statement is a description of the conference process and the rationales for these recommendations. Conclusions/Importance: This consensus conference is the first formal attempt by the professional neuropsychological community to make recommendations for uniform performance test score labels and to advance a consistent definition of impairment. Using uniform descriptors and terms will reduce confusion and enhance report comprehensibility by the consumers of our reports as well as our trainees and colleagues.