Policy Statement of the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology regarding Third Party Observation and the recording of psychological test administration in neuropsychological evaluations

Direct observation of defendant-attorney interactions in assessing abilities to assist.

“…Rooted in the psychological theory of social facilitation, research concerning third parties generally supports the hypothesis that an observer may alter a test-takers’ performance, although any number of variables must be considered including the type of test, the functional ability of the test takers, and the type of observer (e.g., a trainee, a second evaluator, an attorney). Although the APA’s Committee on Psychological Test and Assessments has considered the issue (APA, 2007), much of the existing research and best-practice recommendations has focused specifically on clinical neuropsychological evaluations (American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2001; Lewandowski et al, 2016; McCaffrey, Fisher, Gold, & Lynch, 1996; McCaffrey, Lynch, & Yantz, 2005; McSweeny et al, 1998). The National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) takes the official position that neuropsychologists should make every effort to exclude third-party observers from the evaluation setting (National Academy of Neuropsychology, 2000).…”

Back to the Future of Quantitative Psychology and Measurement: Psychometrics in the Twenty-First Century

“…In physics, scientists need to face the same problem which is well-known as the “observer effect,” where a physical measurement of a system is possible only influencing the system itself. In biobehavioral sciences the observer effect is even worse (Lewandowski et al, 2016 ). In consciousness research, the observer effect can be circumvented through “no-report” paradigms, where the idea is precisely to avoid asking people to report on their experiences to avoid the observer effect.…”