Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation? An interorganizational* position paper
Kyle Brauer Boone,Paul M. Kaufmann,Jerry J. Sweet,David Leatherberry,Robert A. Beattey,Delia Silva,Tara L. Victor,Rodney P. Boone,Jack Spector,Nancy Hebben,Robin A. Hanks,Joette James,Kyle Brauer BoonePaul M. KaufmannJerry J. SweetDavid LeatherberryRobert A. BeatteyDelia SilvaTara L. VictorRodney P. BooneJack SpectorNancy HebbenRobin A. HanksJoette Jamesa Independent Practice,Torrance,California,USAb Wayne State University,Detroit,Michigan,USAc NorthShore University HealthSystem,Evanston,Illinois,USAd Leatherberry Law,a Professional Corporation,San Diego,California,USAe University of California,Davis School of Medicine,Sacramento,California,USAf Independent Practice,San Diego,California,USAg California State University,Dominguez Hills,California,USAh Independent Practice,Baltimore,Maryland,USAi Independent Practice,Alexandria,Virginia,USAj Independent Practice,Charlotte,North Carolina,USAk Department of Psychiatry,Harvard Medical School,Boston,Massachusetts,USAl Department of Psychiatry,Cambridge Health Alliance,Cambridge,Massachusetts,USAm Independent Practice,Newton,Massachusetts,USAn Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,Wayne State University School of Medicine,Detroit,Michigan,USAo Alina Assessment Services,Washington,District of Columbia,USA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2323222
2024-02-29
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Abstract: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.
psychology, clinical,clinical neurology