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.

Official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on test security.

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. METHOD: 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.

Neuropsychologist Experts and Civil Capacity Evaluations: Representative Cases.

Clinical neuropsychologists accept more forensic referrals now and spend more time in forensic consulting than ever before. Recent surveys show weekly hours devoted to forensic consulting increased 97% in the past decade. During the same time period, the number of board certified neuropsychologists more than doubled. Under recently published Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, clinical neuropsychologists practice forensic psychology when applying scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of neuropsychology to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, or administrative matters. Among those increasingly varied forensic referrals, clinical neuropsychologists are conducting more civil competency and capacity evaluations. Representative cases from three jurisdictions demonstrate how neuropsychologists provide expertize in matters involving testamentary capacity, contractual capacity, business judgments, and job capacity. Case presentations illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of neuropsychological evaluation of civil capacities. The article concludes with a "battle of experts" case involving five neuropsychologists with opposing opinions recently heard in a Federal Appellate court. Implications for neuropschology training and forensic competencies are considered. In offering quality services to the legal profession, neuropsychologists support the truth-seeking function of the judiciary, promote justice, protect the profession, and serve public policy.

Neuropsychologist experts and neurolaw: cases, controversies, and admissibility challenges.

Clinical neuropsychologists engage increasingly in forensic consulting activities because such expert opinions are generally relevant, reliable and helpful in resolving certain legal claims, especially those related to traumatic brain injury. Consequently, practitioners of law, medicine and psychology would benefit from understanding the nature of neuropsychological evidence, the standards for its admissibility, and its expanding role in neurolaw. This article reviews important evidentiary rules regulating relevance, preliminary questions, and expert testimony, while tracing federal key court decisions and progeny. Civil and criminal cases are detailed to illustrate the application of these rules and case law to neuropsychological evidence, with suggestions for overcoming motions to exclude such evidence. Expert neuropsychologists have a role in forensic consultation on brain trauma cases, even as the interdisciplinary dialog and understanding among law, medicine, and psychology continues to expand.

Protecting raw data and psychological tests from wrongful disclosure: a primer on the law and other persuasive strategies.

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.

Using path analysis to understand executive function organization in preschool children.

There continues to be no consensus definition of executive functions. One way to understand different executive function components is to study abilities at their emergence, that is, early in development, and use advanced statistical methods to understand the interrelations among executive processes. However, to fully determine the constructs of interest, these methods often require complete data on a large battery of tasks, which are difficult to obtain with young children. Path analysis is an alternative statistical technique that requires only a single measure of each construct, yet still allows researchers to investigate complex relations among measures, to compare nested models, and to compare model fit across groups. Therefore, 117 preschool children (ages 2 years 8 months to 6 years 0 months) completed several executive function tasks. Path analysis was used to determine the relations between complex problem solving and working memory, inhibition, and set shifting processes. The best-fitting model included paths from working memory and inhibition to problem solving, and a correlation between working memory and inhibition. Interestingly, in younger children, inhibition was the strongest predictor of problem solving, whereas working memory contributed more strongly in older children. Suggestions for useful statistical methods to investigate the relations among executive functions in children are discussed.