Threats to the integrity of psychological assessment: The misuse of test raw data and materials.

In the practice of psychological assessment there have been warnings for decades by the American Psychological Association (APA), the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), other associations, and test vendors, against the disclosure of test raw data and test materials. Psychological assessment occurs across several different practice environments, and test raw data is a particularly sensitive aspect of practice considering what it implicitly represents about a client/patient, and this concept is further developed in this paper. Many times, test materials are intellectual property protected by copyrights and user agreements. It follows that improper management of the release of test raw data and test materials threatens the scientific integrity of psychological assessment. Here the matters of test raw data, test materials, and different practice environments are addressed to highlight the challenges involved with improper releases and to offer guidance concerning good-faith efforts to preserve the integrity of psychological assessment and legal agreements. The unique demands of forensic practice are also discussed, including attorneys' needs for cross-examination and discovery, which may place psychologists (and other duly vetted evaluators) in conflict with their commitment to professional ethical codes and legal agreements. To this end, important threats to the proper use of test raw data and test materials include uninformed professionals and compromised evaluators. In this paper, the mishandling of test raw data and materials by both psychologists and other evaluators is reviewed, representative case examples, including those from the literature, are provided, pertinent case law is discussed, and practical stepwise conflict resolutions are offered.

Efficacy of several statistical methods in differentiating TBI and co-occurring conditions: A replication study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Cross-validation of neuropsychological test data sets of moderate-severe TBI (N = 30) with test data from moderate-severe (N = 74); somatization (N = 24) and PCS (N = 22) cases in a database, (2) Determine if cognitive test data sets alone differentiated TBI from other groups, and (3) Evaluate the efficacy of measures in comparisons: Kullback-Leibler, Correlation, Patterns, Cohen's d, and MNB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Meyer's Neuropsychological System; Comparison groups -TBI sample with structural evidence of brain injury (CT/MRI); comparison of 5 statistical measures' efficacy in test data analysis comparing a community sample of moderate TBI (N=30) with a data base containing moderate-severe TBI (N = 74) + co-occurring groups (PCS N = 22) + Somatization (N = 24). Measures utilized: Correlation, Kullbeck-Leibler divergence, Cohen's d, MNB code, Configuration. RESULTS: Combining the five measures most accurately matched the TBI sample (30/30 cases) with MNB comparison groups of similar TBI severity while differentiating those cases from PCS and Somatoform cognitive testdata. Both Kullback Leibler & Cohens' d reduced false positive errors in comparison with the other measures.