Party Observers Definition: Third party observers is a term used in psychological or neuropsychological assessment to refer to the presence of an individual not associated with the examiner when evaluating a patient. In legal settings
this often refers to requests to have a court-reporter present, attorney present, or even tape-recording or video-taping
an evaluation, most often involving psychological or neuropsychological testing.
organizations in neuropsychology have issued policy statements or guidelines, though jurisdictions differ in terms of the
rules for allowing or disallowing such observation or recording. Neuropsychologists have asserted there are research
findings indicating taping, recording, observing all impact on test findings, with some tests showing interference effects
and some facillitation effects. Since much of the interpretation of a test battery involves patterns of differences,
and since there is no research on the impact on many tests or subtests used in many test batteries, this raises issues about
the reliability and validity of any interpretations that may stem from such an evaluation.
American Psychological Association ethics require psychologists to state any possible limitations of their findings, in legal
proceedings it would appear that psychologists would essentially need to indicate that their findings and interpretations
may be impacted in known and unknown ways and they would have to acknowledge they would therefore be less certain about results
when standardization is violated in this manner, than if the testing was conducted in a standardized manner without observers
There is conflict between those who advocate for an open process, with the "protection"
afforded by observation and recording versus those who are committed to the science and mathematics of reliability and validity
of the measurements taken. For many psychologists, such third party observation is akin to contaminating the evidence,
though this latter legal argument and any related precedents have really not been used to my knowledge in terms of appeal
cases. Psychologists may argue that standardization in computerized or handwritten notation of responses along
with the known reliability of testing under standardized conditions, does in fact provide adequate protection.
Ernest J. Bordini, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist
Clinical Psychology Associates of North Central Florida
2121 NW 40th Terrace Suite B, Gainesville, Florida, 32605
Phone: 352-336-2888 firstname.lastname@example.org
IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
THIRD PARTY OBSERVERS:
The presence of third party observers in psychological evaluations, assessment
or testing is a controversial topic. It has generated both empirical research, position papers by national organizations
and has been the subject of legal decisions. The goal of this website is to educate the reader about some of the issues
involved and direct the reader to resources for position papers, legal decisions and other discussions regarding psychological
testing done with observers present, or that conducted under the conditions of video, audio or other recording.
Supreme Court, in Estelle v. Smith (451 U.S. 454, 470 n. 14, 1981)indicated that the physical presence of an attorney during
an evaluation "could contribute little and might seriously disrupt the examination."
APA STANDARDS FOR
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:
American Psychological Association Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing are also relevant since they generally indicate that the psychologist must demonstrate the validity of testing done
in other than an standardized manner. This is very problematic since there are published studies which show both facillitative
and inhibitory effects on different types of tasks. Such effects have been demonstrated with observers, audio-taping,
and video recording. Observing or taping without examinee knowledge is also problematic from ethical, privacy and legal
American Psychological Association (2007) Brief Summary:
Link: Canadian Psychological Association Policy on Third Party Observers, 2009 1-3
APA Paper on Third Party
Observers (TPO) (2007) indicated that the paper was not proscriptive,
but essentially intended to guide psychologists. A fundamental principle seems to center around psychologists responsibility
to ensure the reliability and validity of their methods. It reviews and recognizes observation by third parties, even
recording or videotaping changes human behavior, self disclosure and alters test results and specifically notes that there
are a number of studies indicating research indicating results can be altered to a degree than normal interpretive strategies
would not be appropriate. It goes on to indicate that there may be some circumstances, typically even recognized by test publishers,
where TPO may facilitate such validity, such as when there may be serious cultural or language barriers. While it gives
psychologists some guidance in using judgment, it clearly indicates the psychologist must inform the test-taker as well as
the report-reader that to the degree there are known and unknown impact of various forms of recording or observation, there
are likely to be limitations or alterations in the known reliability and validity of the evaluation. It cites psychologist’s
ethical obligations to try to minimize impact, provide for test security and to discuss the limitations inherent in TPO evaluations.
of Clinical Psychology Position Summary:
The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) published a Policy Statement on Third
Party Observers (2001). It distinguishes between two types
of observers - involved and uninvolved parties. The context of the policy focuses on medicolegal contexts, but not criminal
contexts. The policy precludes involved third parties to be physically or electronically present except under specific circumstances.
This involves circumstances where, for example, the presence of a parent may be beneficial in getting the cooperation of a
toddler and allows some judgment to be exercised by the neuropsychologist when potentially beneficial and disruptive effects
might be expected, while noting research and ethical problems which arise. After reviewing the possible disruptive
effects of observation and recording on the reliability and validity of interpretations and test results (and consistent
with the later APA paper noted above) the AACN paper concludes "As always, it remains incumbent upon the
clinical neuropsychologist to make known any limitation regarding the reliability and validity of their conclusions and other
National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) Position Paper
time of the AACN paper, NAN had produced a similar position paper outlining the ethical concerns about recording or third
party observation in neuropsychological assessments (2000) which also cited concerns about impact on test results. Click for NAN TPO Position Paper
The appeal of the case of Broyles v. Reilly (FL 2nd DCA, 1997)
resulted in opinion that in Florida a general objection to a third party observer is insufficient, but a denial of the presence
of a third party observer must be demonstrated by specific factors in the case. Judges appear to have discretion, and
have at times precluded observation on grounds such an evaluation could not be performed without an ethical psychologist indicating
some compromise to the reliability and validity of the interpretations.
The appeal of the case of Broyles v. Reilly (FL 2nd DCA, 1997) resulted in opinion that in Florida a general objection to a third party observer
is insufficient, but a denial of the presence of a third party observer must be demonstrated by specific factors in the case.
Judges appear to have discretion, and have at times precluded observation on grounds such an evaluation could not be performed
without an ethical psychologist indicating some compromise to the reliability and validity of the interpretations.
Rice, and Hoese (2007) reviewed third party observer issues for psychologists in Florida with a primary focus on neuropsychological
evaluations. Concerns about reliability and validity were noted to be a number of factors. They noted social facilitation
effects may alter test performance in that the presence of observer enhances performance on some overlearned or simple types
of tasks and worse performance on novel or more difficult tasks.
above authors cited research support that even unobtrusive observers or simple recording effects and alters neuropsychological
test performance, citing effect sizes of 1 to 1.5 Standard Deviations on tests of attention, memory, learning, and verbal
fluency. Effects of this size are large enough, on a memory test to shift performance into different categories and
cause interpretation errors. Additional concerns about psychologists ethical duties to maintain test security are outlined.
The authors above note Florida case law currently does not differentiate between medical and psychological
examinations. They cite that 2nd DCA precedent which established that the party seeking to prevent the TPO must
1) present case-specific facts why this would be disruptive and 2) that no other qualified provider in the area would be willing
to conduct the examination with TPO. The authors advocated for the position that the burden of proof that TPO would
not be disruptive should be placed on the party seeking the TPO.
vs Grooms, the Florida DCA upheld a lower court opinion that TPO would be excluded. In this case it was argued
there was no qualified provider to conduct the examination who would not be ethically required to state there were limitations
to the reliability and validity of interpretations. However, this set no legal precedent as the DCA did not issue written
Howe, Rice and Hoese (2007) documented the Florida Psychological Association’s involvement in signing
an Amicus Curiae brief written by the Group Protecting the Integrity of Psychological Examinations (G-PIPE) in Berman
vs. Flocar (Florida 5th DCA, 2006). This was written in support of excluding TPO in psychological
examinations. The District Court of Appeals in that case upheld the lower courts decision to bar TPO, but did not issue
a written opinion. Click here for Berman Amicus Brief.
since the time of the Berman brief continue to show complex interactions. Frontal lobe injuries and executive functions
are often at issue in brain injury cases. A study demonstrated an interaction between anxiety and observation resulting
in reduced performance on tests of executive function under observation conditions (Horwitz and McAffrey, 2008). This adds to the literature that even the presence
of a tape recorder can result in artificial reduction of memory test scores (Constantinou M, Ashendorf L, McCaffrey RJ, 2002), TPO comprimises evaluation of head injury (Lynch, 2005), and
that TPO compromises the credibility of expert testimony (Barth, 2007). Since that time, other state neuropsychological
associations have also held positions that TPO creates validity problems in assessment and should be avoided (e.g. Colorado
Neuropsychological Society, 2008).
and McAffrey (2010) published an article which outlines major objections to third party observation and recording, noting
that there are many false arguments such as minor contradictions in professional position papers which distract from the fact
that to preserve the science, accuracy and validity of the measures, observation, or recording of any kind should be avoided.
An updated list of references and citations is contained in that article.
Test publishers have become proactively involved, publishing positions protecting
trade secrets and their fair use of developed tests, since recording and dissemination would undermine the
value of their product. Many test publishers specifically require psychologists purchasing tests that they will
not allow reproduction in any form, and have issued statements that psychologists have contractual obligations under
this provision to object to third party recording or observation in legal proceedings. For further discussion of other
legal and ethical considerations refer to Morel, 2009 and McSweeney et. al, 1998.
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessments. The
Barth RJ: Observation compromises
the credibility of an evaluation. The Guides Newsletter 2007 , July/August:1-9.
Neuropsychological Society (2008). Official position statement of the Colorado Neuropsychological Society regarding third
party observers and neuropsychological
M, Ashendorf L, McCaffrey R.J. When the third party observer of a neuropsychological
evaluation is an audio-recorder. Clin Neuropsychol. 2002 Aug;16(3):407-12.
J.E. and McAffrey, R.J. Effects of a third party observer and anxiety on tests of executive function. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Volume 23, Issue 4, July 2008, Pages 409-417.
Howe, L. L. S. (2006).
Amicus brief filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida 5D06-2053, by the Group Protecting the Integrity of Psychological
Howe, L, and McAffrey,
R.J. Third party observation in neuropsychological evaluation: An update on the literature, practical advice for practitioners,
and future directions. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24: 518-537, 2010
Howe, L., Rice,
W. J. and Hoese, V. Psychological Ethics and Third Party Observers (TPO): We’ve Observed their Effect and Now Need to
Act. Florida Psychologist, Summer 2007.
Lynch, J. K. (2005). Effect of
a third party observer on neuropsychological test performance following closed head injury. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology,
McSweeny J.A., Becker,
B.C., Naugle, R.I., Snow, W.G., Binder, L.M., & Thompson, L.K. Ethical issues related to the presence of third party
pbservers in clinical neuropsychological evaluations The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1744-4144, Volume 12 (4), 1998, Pages
552 - 559
Morel, K. M. (2009). Test security in medicolegal cases: Proposed guidelines
for attorneys utilizing neuropsychology practice. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
Academy of Neuropsychology Policy and Planning Committee (2000). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological
testing: Official statement of the
National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 379-380.
TO THIS SITE:
Readers who may be aware of federal or state precedent-setting decisions, law, or additional research
not referenced here are encouraged to pass on the citations or references. Please e-mail to email@example.com. If this is the product of your own work, please indicate permission for Clinical Psychology Associates of North Central Florida and/or Neuropsychology Central to post, archive or otherwise use or include this information on this and/or the neuropsychologycentral.com website.
This page will contain links and information to general issues and resources.
Some of this information will be offsite at our affiliated websites or at websites we have no interest or control of.
This website is intended only as a starting point for independent research, a variety of opinions. The user or reader
of this site agrees this site and its owner(s) do not offer member psychological, ethical or legal advice and does not offer
any warranties or representations about the accuracy, usability, completeness of the material contained on this site, any
sites linked to it, or sites which link to this site. The user agrees that no other warranties express or implied are
created or intended by the owners and authors of this site.
This site is under construction - check back soon for more
|Visit Neuropsychology Central
Clinical Psychology Associates of North Central
2121 NW 40th Terrace, Suite B, Gainesville, Florida, 32605
Phone: (352) 336-2888 Fax: (352) 371-1730
Visit Neuropsychology Cental