Release of Protected Test Information Under Protective Order: Viable Solution or Illusory Safeguard? An Interorganizational† Position Paper.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
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":"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":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

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》。
目的:对 "保护令能够充分保护敏感的心理/神经心理学测试信息 "这一假设进行批判性研究。律师有时会声称,为了对神经心理专家进行充分的交叉质证,他们需要直接获取受保护的测试信息,而不是由聘用的神经心理专家对测试数据进行分析。作为一种妥协,法官有时会下令根据保护令向律师公开受保护的测试信息:一个由法医专家组成的指定写作小组撰写了一份立场文件,论述了保护令的历史及其在保护心理和神经心理学测试内容方面的假定有效性。专家组由 12 名法医神经心理学家、一名法医神经心理学家/律师和一名法医心理学家/律师组成:结果:列举了八个原因,说明为什么保护令不能充分保护受保护的心理/神经心理学信息,从而危及测试的未来使用。报告还向专家证人从业者提出了一些建议,以应对非心理学家提出的直接获取受保护测试信息的要求:神经心理学从业者一致认为,测验安全是一个至关重要的问题,如果执行得当,可以确保当前和未来心理和神经心理学评估的有效性,但如果管理不善,则会破坏此类评估。由于保护令的有效性尚未得到保证,而且也无法得到保证,因此受保护的心理和神经心理学测试信息不应根据保护令予以公开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信