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.

Psychogenic stuttering and other acquired nonorganic speech and language abnormalities.

Three cases are presented of peculiar speech and language abnormalities that were evaluated in the context of personal injury lawsuit or workers compensation claims of brain dysfunction after mild traumatic brain injuries. Neuropsychological measures of effort and motivation showed evidence of suboptimal motivation or outright malingering. The speech and language abnormalities of these cases probably were not consistent with neurogenic features of dysfluent speech including stuttering or aphasia. We propose that severe dysfluency or language abnormalities persisting after a single, uncomplicated, mild traumatic brain injury are unusual and should elicit suspicion of a psychogenic origin.