Ethical dilemmas with third party observers

Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 65-82

  Duff, Kevin ^a   Fisher, Jerid M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b Brain Injury Consultants Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethical standards; Forensic; Neuropsychological evaluation; Third party observer

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; ETHICS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; REVIEW;

EID: 27144557391     PISSN: 15211029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J151v04n02_06     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 433-439.
2. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. The American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
3. Binder, L., & Johnson-Greene, D. (1995). Observer effects on neuropsychological performance: A case report. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 74-78.
4. Brittain, J. L., Francis, J. P., McSweeny, A. J., Fisher, J. M., & Barth, J. T. (1997). Ethics in neuropsychology: Where are we now? Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Las Vegas, NV.
5. Burnett, C. K., & North Carolina Psychological Association. (2004). Testing: Under what conditions? The North Carolina Psychologist, 56(3), 3.
6. Cline v. Firestone Rubber Co., 118 FRD 558, US District Court, West Virginia (1988).
7. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Effects of a third party observer during neuropsychological assessment: When the observer is a video camera. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(2), 39-48.
8. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2002). When the third party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio-recorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 407-412,
9. Fisher, J. M. (2003). APA Ethics Code and the forensic neuropsychologist: Practical updates from the front lines. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Dallas, TX.
10. Harcourt Assessment Inc. (2004). HIPAA position statement. National Academy of Neuropsychology Bulletin, 19(1), 1-2, 7-8.
11. Hertenstein v. Kimberly Health Care, Inc., 189 FRD 620, US District Court, Kansas (1999).
12. Kehrer, C. A., Sanchez, P. N., Habif, U., Rosenbaum, J. G., & Townes, B. D. (2000). Effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 67-71.
13. McCaffrey, R. J., Fisher, J. M., Gold, B. A., & Lynch, J. K. (1996). Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations: Who is evaluating whom? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 435-449.
14. McCaffrey, R. J., Lynch, J. K., & Yantz, C. L. (2005). Third party observers: Why all the fuss? Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(2), 1-16.
15. McSweeny, A. J., Becker, B. C., Naugle, R. I., Snow, W. G., Binder, L. M., & Thompson, L. L. (1998). Ethical issues related to third party observers in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 552-559.
16. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
17. National Academy of Neuropsychology Policy and Planning Committee. (2000). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 379-380.
18. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 FRD 605, US District Court, California (1995).
19. Tomlin v. Holecek, 150 FRD 628, US District Court, Minnesota (1993).
20. Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
21. Yantz, C. L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Effects of a supervisor's observation on memory test performance of the examinee: Third party observer effect confirmed. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(2), 27-38.