Update on Third Party Observers in Neuropsychological Evaluation: An Interorganizational Position Paper.

The Clinical neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2021-08-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-19 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2021.1901992
Tannahill Glen, Mark Barisa, Rebecca Ready, Edward Peck, Tresa Roebuck Spencer
{"title":"Update on Third Party Observers in Neuropsychological Evaluation: An Interorganizational Position Paper.","authors":"Tannahill Glen, Mark Barisa, Rebecca Ready, Edward Peck, Tresa Roebuck Spencer","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2021.1901992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), and the American College of Professional Neuropsychology (ACPN) collaborated to publish an update to their original position statements, confirming the organizations' opposition to third party observers (TPO).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A review of literature addressing TPO effects, ethical standards, professional organization position statements, test publisher policies and new telemedicine developments was completed to obtain consensus on relevant issues in TPO and recording of neuropsychological evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TPO has been shown to impact the cognitive functions most often assessed in forensic or medicolegal settings. Third party observation, whether in person, recorded or electronically, remains a potential threat to the validity and reliability of evaluation results, and violates test security guidelines, ethical principles and standards of conduct in the field. Demands for TPO in the context of medicolegal or forensic settings have become a tactic designed to limit the ability of the consulting neuropsychologist to perform assessment and provide information to the trier of fact.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The field of neuropsychology opposes the presence of TPO in the setting of medicolegal or forensic neuropsychological evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1107-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1901992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), and the American College of Professional Neuropsychology (ACPN) collaborated to publish an update to their original position statements, confirming the organizations' opposition to third party observers (TPO).

Method: A review of literature addressing TPO effects, ethical standards, professional organization position statements, test publisher policies and new telemedicine developments was completed to obtain consensus on relevant issues in TPO and recording of neuropsychological evaluations.

Results: TPO has been shown to impact the cognitive functions most often assessed in forensic or medicolegal settings. Third party observation, whether in person, recorded or electronically, remains a potential threat to the validity and reliability of evaluation results, and violates test security guidelines, ethical principles and standards of conduct in the field. Demands for TPO in the context of medicolegal or forensic settings have become a tactic designed to limit the ability of the consulting neuropsychologist to perform assessment and provide information to the trier of fact.

Conclusions: The field of neuropsychology opposes the presence of TPO in the setting of medicolegal or forensic neuropsychological evaluations.

神经心理学评估中第三方观察者的最新进展:一份跨组织立场文件。
目的:美国国家神经心理学学会(NAN)、美国临床神经心理学学会(AACN)和美国专业神经心理学学院(ACPN)合作发布了一份对其原始立场声明的更新,确认了这些组织对第三方观察员(TPO)的反对。方法:通过对TPO效应、伦理标准、专业组织立场声明、测试出版商政策和远程医疗新发展等方面的文献综述,就TPO相关问题和神经心理学评估记录达成共识。结果:TPO已被证明影响认知功能,最常评估在法医或医学法律设置。第三方观察,无论是亲自观察、记录观察还是电子观察,都对评估结果的有效性和可靠性构成潜在威胁,并且违反了该领域的测试安全指导方针、道德原则和行为标准。在医学或法医环境下对TPO的要求已经成为一种策略,旨在限制咨询神经心理学家进行评估和向事实审判者提供信息的能力。结论:神经心理学领域反对在法医或法医神经心理学评估中出现TPO。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书