Kyle Brauer Boone, Jerry J Sweet, Robert A Beattey, Paul M Kaufmann, Nancy Hebben, Catherine Marreiro, Joette James, Delia Silva, Tara Victor, Anita Hamilton, Tannahill Glen, Thomas F Kinsora, H Allison Bender, Mark Barisa
{"title":"根据保护令公开受保护的测试信息:可行的解决方案还是虚幻的保障?组织间立场文件》。","authors":"Kyle Brauer Boone, Jerry J Sweet, Robert A Beattey, Paul M Kaufmann, Nancy Hebben, Catherine Marreiro, Joette James, Delia Silva, Tara Victor, Anita Hamilton, Tannahill Glen, Thomas F Kinsora, H Allison Bender, Mark Barisa","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To critically examine the assumption that protective orders are adequately protective of sensitive psychological/neuropsychological test information. Attorneys at times 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. As a compromise, judges sometimes order that protected test information be released to attorneys under a protective order.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An appointed writing group of forensic experts developed a position paper addressing the history of protective orders and their presumed effectiveness in protecting psychological and neuropsychological test content. The expert panel consisted of 12 forensic neuropsychologists, a forensic neuropsychologist/attorney, and a forensic psychologist/attorney.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight reasons are enumerated as to why protective orders do not sufficiently safeguard protected psychological/neuropsychological information and thereby jeopardize future use of the tests. Recommendations are provided to the expert witness practitioner for navigating demands by non-psychologists for direct access to protected test information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is strong agreement within the practicing neuropsychology community that test security is a vital matter, which, if properly enforced, can ensure the validity of present and future psychological and neuropsychological assessments but, if ineffectively managed, will undermine such evaluations. Because the effectiveness of protective orders has not been, and cannot be, guaranteed, protected psychological and neuropsychological test information should not be released under a protective order.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Release of Protected Test Information Under Protective Order: Viable Solution or Illusory Safeguard? An Interorganizational† Position Paper.\",\"authors\":\"Kyle Brauer Boone, Jerry J Sweet, Robert A Beattey, Paul M Kaufmann, Nancy Hebben, Catherine Marreiro, Joette James, Delia Silva, Tara Victor, Anita Hamilton, Tannahill Glen, Thomas F Kinsora, H Allison Bender, Mark Barisa\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arclin/acae101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To critically examine the assumption that protective orders are adequately protective of sensitive psychological/neuropsychological test information. Attorneys at times 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. As a compromise, judges sometimes order that protected test information be released to attorneys under a protective order.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An appointed writing group of forensic experts developed a position paper addressing the history of protective orders and their presumed effectiveness in protecting psychological and neuropsychological test content. The expert panel consisted of 12 forensic neuropsychologists, a forensic neuropsychologist/attorney, and a forensic psychologist/attorney.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight reasons are enumerated as to why protective orders do not sufficiently safeguard protected psychological/neuropsychological information and thereby jeopardize future use of the tests. Recommendations are provided to the expert witness practitioner for navigating demands by non-psychologists for direct access to protected test information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is strong agreement within the practicing neuropsychology community that test security is a vital matter, which, if properly enforced, can ensure the validity of present and future psychological and neuropsychological assessments but, if ineffectively managed, will undermine such evaluations. Because the effectiveness of protective orders has not been, and cannot be, guaranteed, protected psychological and neuropsychological test information should not be released under a protective order.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae101\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Release of Protected Test Information Under Protective Order: Viable Solution or Illusory Safeguard? An Interorganizational† Position Paper.
Objective: To critically examine the assumption that protective orders are adequately protective of sensitive psychological/neuropsychological test information. Attorneys at times 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. As a compromise, judges sometimes order that protected test information be released to attorneys under a protective order.
Method: An appointed writing group of forensic experts developed a position paper addressing the history of protective orders and their presumed effectiveness in protecting psychological and neuropsychological test content. The expert panel consisted of 12 forensic neuropsychologists, a forensic neuropsychologist/attorney, and a forensic psychologist/attorney.
Results: Eight reasons are enumerated as to why protective orders do not sufficiently safeguard protected psychological/neuropsychological information and thereby jeopardize future use of the tests. Recommendations are provided to the expert witness practitioner for navigating demands by non-psychologists for direct access to protected test information.
Conclusions: There is strong agreement within the practicing neuropsychology community that test security is a vital matter, which, if properly enforced, can ensure the validity of present and future psychological and neuropsychological assessments but, if ineffectively managed, will undermine such evaluations. Because the effectiveness of protective orders has not been, and cannot be, guaranteed, protected psychological and neuropsychological test information should not be released under a protective order.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.