When Ethics Clash with Convenience: Why Forensic Psychologists Must Protect Raw Test Data—Even When Others Don’t

In today’s litigation landscape, requests for raw psychological test data are increasingly common. Attorneys representing both plaintiffs and defendants often push for full disclosure of evaluation materials—sometimes including copyrighted test questions, responses, scoring protocols, and interpretive notes. But as tempting as it may be to comply in the name of cooperation or expediency, forensic psychologists have an unwavering responsibility to protect the integrity of psychological tests.

This duty isn’t just an ethical preference; it’s a legal and professional mandate. And it remains in full force even when other professionals fail to uphold it.

The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Test Protection

Under the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standards 9.04 and 9.11 are clear: psychologists must protect the integrity of test materials and may only release raw test data to qualified professionals. Psychological test materials—such as items from the MMPI-2, WAIS-IV, or PAI—are not only copyrighted but also considered trade secrets by their publishers, including Pearson and PAR.

Releasing these materials to attorneys or unqualified third parties violates licensing agreements and, potentially, intellectual property law. Test publishers themselves have issued statements declaring that disclosure of test materials to non-professionals poses a serious threat to test validity and may warrant injunctive relief.

Moreover, these obligations aren’t theoretical. Courts have upheld the protection of psychological test data in numerous rulings (e.g., Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, State v. Pettit, Douglas v. Parkview Adventist Med. Ctr.), consistently recognizing that test security is essential to maintaining fairness in judicial proceedings.

The Risks of Misuse by Attorneys and Non-Experts

Research shows that when test data falls into the wrong hands, the risks are not just hypothetical. Attorneys, understandably seeking to support their clients, often review psychological tests with them prior to an evaluation. According to surveys by Wetter & Corrigan (1995), Essig et al. (2001), and Spengler et al. (2020), large percentages of attorneys admit to discussing validity scales, symptoms of impairment, and even specific test items with their clients.

This kind of coaching can significantly impair the scientific value of psychological assessments. A meta-analysis by Aparcero et al. (2021) found that coaching on MMPI-2 validity scales enhances a test-taker’s ability to evade detection of feigning. In court, this translates to compromised expert opinions, inaccurate portrayals of mental functioning, and unjust outcomes.

Test security, then, isn’t an abstract principle—it’s a cornerstone of forensic integrity.

When Another Psychologist Crosses the Line

A frequent rebuttal from attorneys is that "the other expert already shared raw data, so you should too." This line of reasoning is not only flawed—it's dangerous.

As licensed psychologists, we are not beholden to the missteps of our colleagues. Just because another professional chooses to violate copyright law or ethical standards does not mean we are required—or even permitted—to do the same. In fact, following such a precedent could expose us to liability and sanctions from our licensing boards or test publishers.

Ethics are not contingent on popular vote or convenience. Our profession demands we hold the line, even when others don’t.

Best Practices for Attorneys and Experts

The solution isn’t to stonewall discovery—it’s to redirect it through appropriate channels. Opposing experts can and should review raw data. But that exchange should happen strictly from psychologist to psychologist.

Here’s what ethical file sharing looks like:

• Raw test data and protocols are provided directly to a retained, licensed psychologist working for opposing counsel.

• That expert may then review, interpret, and report any concerns about scoring, interpretation, or conclusions.

• The psychologist can then communicate findings with the attorney without violating test security.

This process ensures transparency without compromising integrity. Protective orders alone are insufficient in the digital age, where a PDF of proprietary materials can be permanently shared in seconds. Our role as forensic psychologists is to protect the field—not to fuel its erosion.

Upholding the Integrity of Our Science

When we allow psychological test materials to be copied, shared, and dissected by non-experts, we don't just risk invalidating one case—we risk turning decades of validated science into junk evidence. Our responsibility is clear: protect the tools of our trade, uphold the credibility of our profession, and safeguard the public from misleading testimony.

Ethics don’t bend to pressure. And integrity isn’t situational. Even when others compromise, we don’t have to—and we shouldn’t.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.

Aparcero, M., Picard, E. H., Nijdam-Jones, A., & Rosenfeld, B. (2021). The impact of coaching on feigned psychiatric and medical symptoms: A meta-analysis using the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 33(8), 729–745.

Duff, K., & Fisher, J. (2005). Ethical dilemmas with third party observers. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 65–82.

Kaufman, P. (2005). Protecting the objectivity, fairness, and integrity of neuropsychological evaluations in litigation. Journal of Legal Medicine, 26, 95–131.

Kaufman, P. (2009). Protecting raw data and psychological tests from wrongful disclosure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1130–1159.

Spengler, P. M., Walters, N. T., Bryan, E., & Millspaugh, B. S. (2020). Attorneys’ attitudes toward coaching forensic clients on the MMPI–2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(1), 56–65.

Sweet, J. J., Grote, C., & van Gorp, W. (2002). Ethical issues in forensic neuropsychology. In S. S. Bush & M. L. Drexler (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 103–133).

Victor, T. L., & Abeles, N. (2004). Coaching clients to take psychological and neuropsychological tests: A clash of ethical obligations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 373–379.

Wetter, M., & Corrigan, S. (1995). Providing information to clients about psychological tests: A survey of attorneys' and law students' attitudes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 474–477.