Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Boone, Kyle Brauer
• Kaufmann, Paul M.
• Sweet, Jerry J.
• Leatherberry, David
• Beattey, Robert A.
• Silva, Delia
• Victor, Tara L.
• Boone, Rodney P.
• Spector, Jack
• Hebben, Nancy
• Hanks, Robin A.
• James, Joette

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• Clinical neuropsychologist, 2024-05, Vol.38 (4), p.889-906

Ort / Verlag

England: Routledge

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Taylor & Francis Journals Auto-Holdings Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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.