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.

中文翻译：

---

神经心理学评估中第三方观察者的最新情况：组织间立场文件

摘要

客观的

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会 (ACPN) 合作发布了对其原始立场声明的更新，证实了这些组织对第三方观察员的反对。 TPO）。

方法

完成了对涉及 TPO 影响、道德标准、专业组织立场声明、测试出版商政策和新远程医疗发展的文献的审查，以就 TPO 的相关问题和神经心理学评估的记录达成共识。

结果

TPO 已被证明会影响法医或法医环境中最常评估的认知功能。第三方观察，无论是亲自、记录还是电子方式，仍然对评估结果的有效性和可靠性构成潜在威胁，并违反测试安全指南、道德原则和现场行为标准。在法医或法医环境中对 TPO 的要求已成为一种策略，旨在限制咨询神经心理学家进行评估并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使用 TPO。