{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022076860179885527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.545454545454546, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Third Party Observation During Neuropsychological Evaluation: An Update on the Literature, Practical Advice for Practitioners, and Future Directions

A clash between neuropsychology and the law may exist when a demand is made for third party observation during forensic neuropsychological evaluation. Third party observation includes any person or observational process present during a neuropsychological evaluation aside from the psychologist and the examinee, including electronic devices (e.g., video and audio recordings). The goal of this paper includes succinctly providing to practitioners the scientific, ethical, and pragmatic (i.e., test security and coaching) reasons to not allow third party observation. Practitioners at the individual level need to be aware of the reasoning and be willing and able to advocate protecting the boundaries of neuropsychological practice and test security. We present practitioners with options when confronted with a request, provide a list of resources to educate the legal system and submit with motions, provide responses for some of the more common myths/reasoning used to support a request for a TPO, and encourage more global solutions such as state-by-state legislation.