The purpose of this article is to alert psychologists to a growing threat to the validity of psychological and neuropsychological evaluations in forensic matters. Several examples of attorney preparation of clients for examinations are described. Insofar as examinees' responses to tests and interviews reflect preparation by an attorney for litigation, instead of the psychological status of the examinee, the validity of psychologists' expert opinions may be compromised. Baer et al. Legal authorities also appear to be concerned about attorneys' affecting examinations.
Attorneys influence psychological data by a variety of means.
They advise their clients how to respond to psychological tests, make suggestions of what to tell examining psychologists and what to emphasize, and lead patients not to disclose certain information important to psychologists. Although attorneys are reluctant to discuss privileged communications with specific clients, they publicly share relevant information in continuing legal education courses. In this course they were discouraged from sending clients to independent examinations without advance preparation by counsel. From a clinical and scientific perspective, attorneys' reviewing symptoms with clients is problematic. For example, suggestion, malingering, iatrogenic effects, or directed attention may arise as confounds during such a review.