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

Clinical Neuropsychologist

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1130-1159

  Kaufmann, Paul M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert; Forensic consulting; Law; Raw data; Test materials

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY; ETHICS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGIST; PSYCHOMETRY; REVIEW;

CONFIDENTIALITY; DISCLOSURE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AS TOPIC; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS;

EID: 70349471030     PISSN: 13854046     EISSN: 17444144     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13854040903107809     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Alexander, A. (2006). Functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection: Is a "brainstorm" heading toward a "gatekeeper". Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 7, 1-56.
2. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2003). Official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on ethical complaints made against clinical neuropsychologists during adversarial proceedings. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 443-445.
3. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2007). AACN practice guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and consultation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 209-231.
4. American Bar Association. (2002). Model rules of professional conduct.
5. American Psychological Association. (1987). Casebook on ethical principles of psychologists. Washington: American Psychological Association.
6. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
7. American Psychological Association. (2007, December). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 62(9), 993-1004.
8. American Psychological Association, Committee on Legal Issues. (2006). Strategies for private practitioners coping with subpoenas or compelled testimony for client records or test data. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 215-222.
9. American Psychological Association, Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessments. (1996). Statement on disclosure of test data. American Psychologist, 51, 644-648. [See http://www.apa.org/science/disclosu.html (last visited January 25, 2009).]
10. American Psychological Association, Division 41 American Psychology-Law Society. (February, 2008). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, third official draft. [See http://www.ap-ls.org/links/22808sgfp.pdf (last visited January 25, 2009).]
11. Attix, D. K., Donders, J., Johnson-Greene, D., Grote, C. L., Harris, J. G., & Bauer, R. (2007). Disclosure of neuropsychological test data: Official position of division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association, Association of Postdoctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology, and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 232-238.
12. Barth, J. T. (2000). Commentary on "Disclosure of tests and raw test data to the courts" by Paul Lees-Haley and John Courtney. Neuropsychology Review, 10(3), 179-180.
13. Behnke, S. (2003 July/August). Release of test data and APA's new Ethics Code. Monitor on Psychology, 34(7), 70-72.
14. Behrmann v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. 06-CA-005057-K, Florida 13th Circuit, Hillsborough County (2008)
15. Ben-Porath, Y., Greve, K., Bianchini, K., & Kaufmann, P. (2009). The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) is an empirically-validated measure of over-reporting in personal injury litigants and claimants: Reply to Butcher et al. (2008). Psychological Injury and the Law, 2(1), 62-85.
16. Black's Law Dictionary. (2006). (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group. Boone, K. B. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment. New York: Guilford Press.
17. Bush, S. S. (2005). Differences between the 1992 and 2002 APA Ethics Code: A brief overview. In S. S. Bush (Ed.), A casebook of ethical challenges in neuropsychology (pp. 1-8). New York: Psychology Press.
18. Bush, S. S., & Lees-Haley, P. R. (2005). Threats to the validity of forensic neuropsychological data: Ethical considerations. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(3), 45-66.
19. Bush, S. S., & Martin, T. A. (2006). The ethical and clinical practice of disclosing raw test data: Addressing the ongoing debate. Applied Neuropsychology, 13, 125-136.
20. Bush, S. S., Rapp, D. L., & Ferber, P. S. (in press). Maximizing test security in forensic neuropsychology. In A. M. Horton Jr. & L. C. Hartlage (Eds.), Handbook of forensic neuropsychology, 2nd edition. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
21. Campbell v. Papell, No. 2005-CA 007681, Florida 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County (March 19, 2009 Order
22. Carlson, R. L., Imwinkelried, E. J., Kionka, E. J., & Strachan, K. (2007). Evidence: Teaching materials for and age of science and statutes, 6th edition. Albany, NY: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. Carpenter v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 141 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)
23. Chadda, R., & Stein, S. J. (2005). Test publisher's perspective: Release of test data to nonpsychologists. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 59-69.
24. Chiperas v. Rubin, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23578 (D.C. Cir., 1998). Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum, Inc., No.05-4320, Florida 13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County (May 30, 2007 Order). Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, (U.S. 1979). EEOC v. C & P Telephone Co., 813 F.Supp. 874, (1993)
25. Erard, R. E. (2004). "A raw deal" reheated: Reply to comments by Rogers, Fischer, Smoth, and Evans. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 44-47.
26. Essig, S. M., Mittenberg, W., Petersen, R. S., Strauman, S., & Cooper, J. T. (2001). Practices in forensic neuropsychology: Perspectives of neuropsychologists and trial attorneys. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 271-291.
27. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 24, 26, 34, 37, 45, 53 (2009)
28. FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 16 (2009)
29. FED. R. EVID. 104, 403, 408, 501, 702, 703, 705 (2009)
30. Fisher, C.B. (2003a). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
31. Fisher, C.B. (2003b). Test data standard most notable change in new APA ethics code. The National Psychologist, Jan/Feb, 12-13.
32. Flanagan v. Wilson & Huene No. 97-L-5 (Il. 4th Cir., Oct. 27, 1999) (Paul M. Kaufmann, Ph.D., ABPP-CN rendered testimony on subpoena duces tecum). Florida Dept. of Trans. v. Piccolo, 964 So. 2d 773, (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2nd, 2007). Fox v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc., No. 02-L-52, First Judicial Circuit, Jackson County, IL (motion to intervene denied February 27, 2004)
33. Freides, D. (1993). Proposed standard of professional practice: Neuropsychological reports display all quantitative data. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 234-235.
34. Freides, D. (1995). Interpretations are more benign than data. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 248.
35. Frumkin, I. B. (1995). How to handle attorney request for psychological test data. Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book, 14, 275-292.
36. Greiffenstein, M. F., & Cohen, L. (2005). Neuropsychology and the law: Principles of productive attorney-neuropsychologist relations. In G. J. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach (pp. 29-91). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Grote, C. (2005). Ethical practice of forensic neuropsychology. In G. J. Larrabee (Vol. Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach pp. 92-114. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of the U.S.C.), specifically associated regulations: 45 C.F.R. § 160.203(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(a)(1)(ii)
39. Hielbronner, R. L. (2004). A status report on the practice of forensic neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 312-326.
40. Howe, L. L. S., Sweet, J. J., & Bauer, R. M. (in press). Advocacy 101: A step beyond just complaining: How the individual practitioner can become involved and make a difference. The Clinical Neuropsychologist.
41. In re Bedi, 917 A.2d 659 (D.C., 2007)
42. In re C TEK Software, Inc., 1991.
43. In re Cummings, 9 So.2d 614 (LA 1942)
44. In re Rojas, 929 So2d 1229 (LA 2006)
45. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
46. Kaufmann, P. M. (2005). Protecting the objectivity, fairness, and integrity of neuropsychological evaluations in litigation: A privilege second to none? The Journal of Legal Medicine, 26, 95-131
47. Kaufmann, P. M. (2006). Neuropsychology in the courtroom: Discovery wars, records management, scope of practice, and legal requirements. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 183. [CE Workshop presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN): Philadelphia, PA.]
48. Kaufmann, P. M. (2007a). Forensic psychology in Arizona courtrooms: Discovery wars, records management, scope of practice, professional ethics, and legal requirements. CE Workshop sponsored by Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
49. Kaufmann, P. M. (2007b). Scientific evidence in the court room: Legal requirements and ethical dilemmas for the expert neuropsychologist. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 13, Supplement S1. [CE Workshop presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society (INS). Portland, OR.]
50. Kaufmann, P. M. (2007c). Releasing raw data and psychological test materials: Ethical dilemmas, legal requirements, and simple solutions to discovery demands. CE Workshop presented at the 27th Annual of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Scotsdale, AZ.
51. Kaufmann, P. M. (2008a). Admissibility of neuropsychological evidence in criminal cases: Competency, insanity, culpability, and mitigation. In R. L. Denney & J. P. Sullivan (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting (pp. 55-90). New York: Guilford Press.
52. Kaufmann, P. M. (2008b). Legal requirements and ethical dilemmas for psychologists consulting in court. CE Workshop presented at the 116th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association: Boston, MA. PROTECTING RAW DATA AND TESTS 1157
53. Kaufmann, P. M. (2009). Cases, controversies, and legal authority in neuropsychological practice. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(4), 556. [CE Workshop presented at the 7th Annual AACN Conference, San Diego, CA.]
54. Keckler, C. N. W. (2006). Cross-examining the brain: A legal analysis of neural imaging for credibility impeachment. Hastings Law Journal, 57, 509-556.
55. Koshbin, L. S., & Shahram, K. (2007). Imaging the mind, minding the image: An historical introduction to brain imaging and the law. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 171-192.
56. Kulynych, J. (1997). Psychiatric evidence: High-tech crystal ball? Stanford Law Review, 49, 1249-1270.
57. Law School Admission Counsel. (2008). Law School Admission Test. Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Counsel.
58. Larrabee, G. J. (Ed.). (2005). Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Larrabee, G. J. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits. New York: Oxford University Press.
60. Lees-Haley, P. R., & Courtney, J. C. (April, 2000). Are psychologists hiding evidence? Claims Magazine, 20-25. [See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/ Are-psychologists-hidingevidence. html (last visited January 25, 2009).]
61. Lees-Haley, P. R., & Courtney, J. C. (2000a). Disclosure of tests and raw data to the courts: A need for reform. Neuropsychology Review, 10(3), 169-176.
62. Lees-Haley, P. R., & Courtney, J. C. (2000b). Reply to the commentary on "Disclosure of test and raw data to the courts". Neuropsychology Review, 10(3), 181-182.
63. Lees-Haley, P. R., Courtney, J. C., & Dinkins, J. P. (2005). Revisiting the need for reform in the disclosure of tests and raw test data to the courts: The 2002 APA Ethics Code has not resolved our dilemma. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 71-81.
64. Limbaugh-Kirker v. Decosta, Case No. 06-CA-000706, Florida 20th Circuit, Lee County (February 9, 2009 Order)
65. Martinez v. KSM Holding Ltd., 294 A.D.2d 111, (NY App. Div., 2002). Morgan, J. & Sweet, J. (Eds.). (2008). Neuropsychology of malingering casebook. New York: AACN & Psychology Press.
66. Morse, S. J. (2006). Symposium: The mind of a child: The relationship between brain development, cognitive functioning and accountability under the law: Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 397-412.
67. Nason v. Shafranski, Florida 19th Circuit, St. Lucie County (September 11, 2008 Ruling)
68. National Academy of Neuropsychology. (2000). Test security. Official position of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15(5), 383-386.
69. National Academy of Neuropsychology Policy and Planning Committee. (2003). Test security: An update. Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. See http://www.nanonline.org/NAN/Files/PAIC/PDFs/ NANTestSecurityUpdate.pdf (last visited January 25, 2009
70. National Academy of Neuropsychology. (2004). Releasing test materials: Position of the Psychological Corporation. Bulletin, 19(1), 1-8.
71. Naugle, R. I., & McSweeny, A. J. (1995). On the practice of routinely appending neuropsychological data to reports. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9(3), 245-247.
72. Naugle, R. I., & McSweeny, A. J. (1996). More thoughts on the practice of routinely appending raw data to reports: Response to Freides and Matarazzo. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 313-314.
73. NLRB v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 856 F.2d 409 (1st Cir., 1988)
74. NLRB v. Pfizer, Inc., 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir., 1985). 1158 PAUL M. KAUFMANN
75. NLRB v. U.S. Postal Service, 17 F.3d 1434 (4th Cir., 1994)