Significant controversy surrounds how psychologists should balance competing interests when considering whether and under what conditions third parties should be permitted to be present during psychological evaluations. This is especially true in forensic contexts where much is often at stake for those being assessed. Unfortunately, existing professional statements on this issue provide limited guidance to practitioners on how to think about this issue. In this article, the authors (a) distinguish between different types of third party participants, (b) highlight the competing interests that underlie third party presence decisions, and (c) offer a framework for psychologists to employ when considering third party presence.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. ( 1990). Guidelines for the clinical evaluation of child and adolescent sexual abuse. Washington, DC: Author .
3.
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. ( 1999). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology policy on the use of non-doctoral-level personnel in conducting clinical neuropsychological evaluations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 385.
4.
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. ( 2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist , 15, 433-439.
5.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1999). Standards for educational testing and psychological assessment . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
6.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. ( 1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .
8.
Berliner, L., & Lieb, R. ( 2001). Child sexual abuse investigations: Testing documentation methods (Document No. 01-0104102). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/PilotProjects.pdf
9.
Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. ( 2000). Why judges must insist on electronically preserved recordings of child interviews. Court Review, 37, 10-12.
10.
Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment, American Psychological Association. (2007). Statement on third party observers in psychological testing and assessment: A framework for decision making. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2002). When the third party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio-recorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 407-412.
12.
Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2005). Effects of a third party observer during neuropsychological assessment: When the observer is a video camera. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 39-47.
13.
Cramer, R., & Brodsky, S. ( 2007). Undue influence or ensuring rights? Attorney presence during forensic evaluations. Ethics and Behavior, 17, 51-60.
14.
Drogin, E.Y., & Barrett, C.L. ( 2003). Substituted judgment: Roles for the forensic psychologist . In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 301-312). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
15.
Dziwanoski v. Ocean Carriers Corporation, 26 F.R.D. 595 (D. Md. 1960).
16.
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 471 (SCT 1981).
17.
Gavett, B.E., Lynch, J.K., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2005). Third party observers: The effect size is greater than you might think. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 49-64.
18.
Goldstein, A.M., Morse, S.J., & Shapiro, D. ( 2003). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 382-406). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
19.
Harcourt Assessment. (2008). Legal policies. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://harcourtassessment.com
20.
Hayes v. District Court, 854 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1993).
21.
Jones, L.M., Cross, T.P., Walsh, W.A., & Simone, M. ( 2005). Criminal investigations of child abuse: The research behind "best practices."Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6, 254-268.
22.
Kehrer, C.A., Sanchez, P.N., Habif, U., Rosenbaum, G.J., & Townes, B.D. ( 2000). Effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 67-71.
23.
Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K.J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. ( 2000). Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 699-708.
24.
Langfeldt-Haaland v. Saupe Enterprises, Inc., 768 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1989).
25.
Lynch, J. ( 2005). Effect of a third party observer on neuropsychological test performance following closed head injury. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 17-25.
26.
McCaffrey, R., Fisher, J., Gold, B., & Lynch, J. ( 1996). Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations. Who is evaluating who?The Clinical Neuropsychologist , 10, 435-449.
27.
McCaffrey, R., Lynch, J., & Yantz, C. ( 2005). Third party observers: Why all the fuss?, Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 1-15.
28.
McDaniel v. Toledo, Peoria & Western R.R., 97 F.R.D. 525 (C.D. Ill. 1983).
29.
Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R.K. ( 2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
30.
Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E., & Condit, D. ( 2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration . Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 1094-1102.
31.
National Academy of Neuropsychology. (2000 ). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 379-380.
32.
Otto, R.K. ( 2008). Challenges and advances in the assessment of response style in forensic evaluation contexts. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (2nd ed.; pp. 365-375). New York: Guilford.
33.
Pope, K., Butcher, J., & Seelen, J. ( 2000). The MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A: A practical guide for expert witnesses and attorneys (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
34.
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
35.
Ruiz, M., Drake, E.B., Glass, A., Marcotte, D., & Van Gorp, W.G. (2002). Trying to beat the system: Use of the internet to assist in avoiding the detection of psychological symptom dissimulation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 33, 294-299.
36.
Shealy, C., Cramer, R., & Pirelli, G. ( 2008). Third party presence during criminal forensic evaluations: Psychologists’ opinions, attitudes and practices. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 570-572.
37.
Tietjen v. Department of Labor & Industry, 13 Wn. App. 86, 534 P.2d 151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975).
38.
US Security Insurance Company v. Cimino, 754 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2000).
39.
Warren, A.R., & Woodall, C.E. ( 1999). The reliability of hearsay: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 355-371.
40.
Wetter, M., & Corrigan, S. ( 1995). Providing information to clients about psychological tests: A survey of attorneys’ and law students’ attitudes. Professional Psychological: Research and Practice, 26, 474-477.
41.
Wood v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, 353 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
42.
Youngjohn, J. ( 1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluations. Assessment, 2, 279-283.
43.
Zapf, P.A., Boccaccini, M.T., & Brodsky, S.L. ( 2003). Assessment of competency for execution: Professional guidelines and an evaluation checklist. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 103-120.
