English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the context of forensic neuropsychological assessments, the professional interaction of law and psychology is viewed primarily as one where the retaining attorney or court dictates its needs to psychologists when resolving legal disputes. While this perspective is conceptually accurate, the positive and practical collaboration of law and psychology also relies on attorneys adhering to basic protections of sensitive psychological assessment procedures and tests. Objective testing is undermined when a practitioner of law engages in actions prior to, during, or following a neuropsychological examination in a manner that threatens the test security. An appreciation among practitioners of law and psychology regarding the necessity of test security is essential. This article reviews attorney actions that can affect test security, proposes a distinction by psychology between appropriate and problematic client preparation for a neuropsychological examination, integrates the available legal precedent regarding test security, and suggests productive measures to protect test security in medicolegal settings.

Test Security in Medicolegal Cases: Proposed Guidelines for Attorneys Utilizing Neuropsychology Practice