Test security in medicolegal cases: Proposed guidelines for attorneys utilizing neuropsychology practice

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 635-646

  Morel, Kenneth R ^a  

^a VA Tennessee Valley   (United States)

Author keywords

Attorney coaching; Guidelines; Medicolegal; Neuropsychological assessment; Test security

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BRAIN DYSFUNCTION; HUMAN; LAW; LAWYER; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL SECRECY; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGIST; REVIEW;

EID: 72949112429     PISSN: 08876177     EISSN: 18735843     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acp062     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Abeles, N. (2001). Challenges of test coaching in assessment. Testing International, 11 (2), 4-6. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://educ.ubc.ca/ faculty/zumbo/itc/itcv11no2.pdf.
2. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 433-439.
3. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2007). Practice guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and consultation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 209-231.
4. American Academy of Neurology. (1996). Therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee report. Neurology, 47, 592-599.
5. American Bar Association. (2002). Model rules of professional conduct. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ ABA-CODE.HTM.
6. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7. American Psychological Association. (1994a). Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment. Statement on the use of secure psychological tests in the education of graduate and undergraduate psychology students. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/science/securetests.html.
8. American Psychological Association. (1994b). Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment. Statement on the disclosure of test data. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/science/disclosu.html.
9. American Psychological Association. (1999). Test security: Protecting the integrity of tests. American Psychologist, 54 (12), 1078.
10. American Psychological Association. (2002). The APA ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. Andberg, M. (2004). Caught in the middle: Ethical/legal mandates and test security. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
12. Association of Test Publishers. (2003, Fall/Winter). HIPAA-Not just a healthcare issue. Test Publisher, 10 (2), 1-6.
13. Axelrod, B., Barth, J., Faust, D., Fisher, J., Heilbronner, R., Larrabee, G., et al. (2000). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing, official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15 (5), 379-380.
14. Axelrod, B., Heilbronner, R., Barth, J. T., Larrabee, G., Faust, D., Pliskin, N., et al. (2000). Test security: Official position statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15 (5), 383-386.
15. Bacallao v. Westchester General Hospital, Inc., No.99-2954 (Miami-Dade Co. Ct. 2007).
16. 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.
17. Bauer, L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2006). Coverage of the Test of Memory Malingering, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Word Memory Test on the Internet: Is test security threatened? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 121-126.
18. Bennett v. State, 766 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. Cr. App. 1989).
19. Bigler, E. D. (2007). A motion to exclude and the 'fixed' versus 'flexible' battery in 'forensic' neuropsychology: Challenges to the practice of clinical neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 45-51.
20. British Psychological Association. (2007). Statement on the conduct of psychologists providing expert psychometric evidence to courts and lawyers. Leicester, England: Psychological Testing Centre.
21. Bursztajn, H. J., Paul, R. K., Reiss, D. M., & Hamm, R.M. (2003). Letter to the editor. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31 (3), 396-397.
22. Bush, S., Barth, J., Pliskin, N., Arffa, S., Axelrod, B., Blackburn, L., et al. (2005). Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20 (8), 997-1007.
23. Bush, S., & Lees-Haley, P. R. (2005). Threats to the validity of forensic neuropsychological data: Ethical considerations. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4 (3), 45-66.
24. Bush, S., & Martin, T. A. (2006). The ethical and clinical practice of disclosing raw test data: Addressing the ongoing debate. Applied Neuropsychology, 13 (2), 115-124.
25. Bush, S., Ruff, R., Troster, A., Barth, J., Koffler, S., Pliskin, N., et al. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2 (20), 419-426.
26. California v. James, 256 Cal. Rptr. 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
27. Chadda, R., & Stein, S. J. (2005). Test publisher's perspective: Release of test data to non-psychologists. The Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5 (2), 59-69.
28. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
29. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffery, R. (2002). When the third party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio-recorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 407-412.
30. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Effects of third party observer during neuropsychological assessment: When the observer is a video camera. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4 (2), 39-48.
31. Cramer, R. J., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). Undue influence or ensuring rights? Attorney presence during forensic psychology evaluations. Ethics and Behavior, 17 (1), 51-60.
32. Cunningham v. Montgomery, 921 P.2d 1355 (Or. App. 1996).
33. Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 440 U.S. 301 (1979).
34. Dirck, B. (2007). Lincoln the Lawyer. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
35. Dolan, M. (1994, June 1). Defense seldom rests on issues of ethics & duty. Los Angeles Times, p. A17.
36. Durrant, M. (2003). Report of the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Professional. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://utcourts.gov/resources/ reports/FinalReport.pdf.
37. Erickson, J. (2008, October). Take the nail back out of the coffin: Restoring the security of psychological test instruments. Tennessee Psychology, Newsletter of the Tennessee Psychological Association, 8.
38. 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 (3), 271-291.
39. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 470 n. 14 (1981).
40. Federal Judicial Center. (2000). Reference manual on scientific evidence (2nd ed.). Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/ lookup/ sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
41. Ford, C. V. (1983). The somatizing disorders: Illness as a way of life. New York: Elsevier.
42. Foster, D. (2000). What's all the fuss about test security? Certification Magazine, 2. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.caveon.com/articles/ df-article10.htm.
43. Frank, J. P. (1961). Lincoln as a lawyer. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
44. Gavett, B. E., Lynch, J., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Third party observers: The effect size is greater than you might think. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 49-64.
45. Gershman, B. L. (2002). Witness coaching by prosecutors. Cardozo Law Review, 23, 829-863.
46. Gervais, R., Green, P., Allen, L. M., & Iverson, G. (2001). Effects of coaching on symptom validity testing in chronic pain patients presenting for disability assessments. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 2 (2), 1-19.
47. Gouvier,W. D., Lees-Haley, P., & Hammer, J. H. (2003). The neuropsychological examination in the detection of malingering in the forensic arena: Costs and benefits. In G. P. Prigatano, & N. H. Pliskin (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and cost outcomes research: A beginning (pp. 405-424). New York: The Psychology Press.
48. Green, P. (2006). The pervasive influence of effort on neuropsychological test. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1 (3), 1-21.
49. Green, P., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Allen, L. M. (2002). The Word Memory Test and the validity of neuropsychological test scores. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 2 (3-4), 97-124.
50. Green, P., Rohling, M. L., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Allen, L. M. (2001). Effort has a greater effect on test scores than severe brain injury in compensation claimants. Brain Injury, 15 (12), 1045-1060.
51. Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D.W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57.
52. Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 129-132.
53. Greiffenstein, M. F., & Cohen, L. (2005). Neuropsychology and the law: Principles of productive attorney-neuropsychologist relations. In G. J. Larrabe (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach (pp. 29-91). New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Gutheil, T. G. (2003). Reflections on coaching by attorneys. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31 (1), 6-9.
55. Henning, P. J. (2006). Lawyers, truth, and honesty in representing clients. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 20 (5), 209-278.
56. Holloway, J. D. (2004). Cracking down on test security violations. Monitor on Psychology, 35 (3), 28.
57. Howe, L. (2006). Amicus brief filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida, Case No. 5D06-2053, by Group Protecting the Integrity of Psychological Examinations.
58. Howe, L., Sweet, J. J., Courtney, J. C., Russell, E. W., Russell, A., Anderson, A., et al. (2007). Amicus brief filed in Florida Department of Transportation v. Piccolo, 2D06-4685, FL 04-11035.
59. Howe, L., Rice, W. J., & Hoese, V. (2007). Psychological Ethics and Third Party Observers (TPO): We've observed their effect and now need to act. Florida Psychologist, Summer, 58(2), 18-19, 35.
60. Jenkins v. U.S. 307 F.2d 637 (1962).
61. Kaufmann, P. M. (2005). Protecting the objectivity, fairness, and integrity of neuropsychological evaluations in litigation: A privilege second to none? Journal of Legal Medicine, 26 (1), 95-131.
62. Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: Standards and cases (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Koplan, K. I. (1999). Neuropsychological assessment. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/128437.htm
64. l. Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Cr. App. 1997).
65. Larrabee, G. J. (2000). Forensic neuropsychological assessment. In R. D. Vanderploeg (Ed.), Clinician's guide to neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed., pp. 301-336). NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Lees-Haley, P. R. (1997a). Attorneys influence expert evidence in forensic psychological and neuropsychological cases. Assessment, 4, 321-324.
67. Lees-Haley, P. R. (1997b). MMPI-2 base rates for 492 personal injury plaintiffs: Implications and challenges for forensic assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53 (7), 745-755.
68. McCaffrey, R. J., Lynch, J., & Yantz, C. L. (2005). Third party observers: Why all the fuss? Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology 4 (2), 1-15.
69. McClellan, P. (2006). Who is telling the truth? Psychology, common sense and the law. Annual Conference of the Local Courts of New South Wales. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme-Court/ ll-sc.nsf/pages/SCO-mcclellan020806.
70. McKinzey, R. K. (2001). A judge's introduction to neuropsychological assessments. Court Review, 37 (4), 24-30.
71. Meyer, G., Finn, S., Eyde, L., Kay, G., Moreland, K., Dies, R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56 (2), 128-165.
72. Prohaska, M., & Martin, D. P. (2007). Obtaining neuropsychological test data: Why is this so hard? The Alabama Lawyer, May, 216-223.
73. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F. 605 (Cal. 1995).
74. Rogers, R. (2004). APA 2002 ethics, amphibology, and the release of psychological test records: A counterperspective to Erard. The Journal of Personality Assessment, 82 (1), 31-34.
75. Rüsseler, J., Brett, A., Klaue, U., Sailer, M., & Münte, T. F. (2008). The effect of coaching on the simulated malingering of memory impairment. BMC Neurology, 8 (37), 1-14.
76. Schmeiser, C. B., Geisinger, K. F., Johnson-Lewis, S., Roeber, E. D., & Schafer, W. D. (1995). Code of professional responsibilities in educational measurement. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.ncme.org/ about/docs/prof-respons.doc.
77. Simmons v. Mullins, 231 Pa. Super. 199, 331 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 1975).
78. State Board of Examiners Decision. (2008a). New Jersey Department of Education. In the Matter of the Certificates of Aikaterini Karis, Dkt. No.0607-111 (NJ. 2008).
79. State Board of Examiners Decision. (2008b). New Jersey Department of Education. In the Matter of the Certificates of William Mascuch, Dkt. No.0607-134 (NJ. 2008).
80. Stern, B. H. (2001). Admissibility of neuropsychological testimony after Daubert and Kumho. NeuroRehabilitation, 16 (2), 93-101.
81. Sweet, J. J. (1999). Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice. Royersford, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger.
82. Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1976).
83. Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (1966).
84. Tennessee Supreme Court. (2004). Tennessee rules of professional conduct. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.tba.org/ethics/tscrules-04-01-2004. pdf.
85. Tilson, L., & Sewick, B. G. (2002, September). Protective orders should be issued for neuropsychological test instruments. Trial Practice: Michigan Bar Journal, 2002, 47.
86. Victor, T. L., & Abeles, N. (2004). Coaching clients to take psychological and neuropsychological tests: A clash of ethical obligations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35 (4), 373-379.
87. Wetter, M. W., & Corrigan, S. K. (1995). Providing information to clients about psychological tests: A survey of attorneys' and law students' attitudes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 474-477.
88. Youngjohn, J. R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to a neuropsychology evaluation. Assessment, 2, 279-283.