Practice Innovations, Vol 10(3), Sep 2025, 251-265; doi:10.1037/pri0000221
The disclosure of test data has been a decades-long controversy because disclosing test data sometimes requires disclosing test materials. Improperly disclosing test materials may invalidate tests, while improperly withholding test data may hamper the legal system’s administration of justice. A systematic review of 152 state and federal cases was conducted to identify how such disputes have been resolved, whether public policy supports publishers’ or the legal system’s rights, and how responses to requests for test data might be improved. Legal databases were searched for cases when test data disclosure was challenged. Selected data were extracted from each case and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Challenges to discovery included 305 arguments in 26 categories; common arguments included disclosures to nonpsychologists, intellectual property laws, ethics code, rules of discovery, and confidentiality/privilege. Results found that 66% of courts disclosed test data to nonpsychologists, 10% to another psychologist, with 24% other outcomes. Challenges based on state law and requests for protective orders were more successful. In terms of courts’ rationales, the rules of procedure or evidence were most often ascendant over other considerations (51%). Outcomes and rationales reflected the public policy of the legal system’s right to access test data. The interpretation of results was limited because parties and psychologists used multiple simultaneous challenges and the facts of each case varied widely. These results contradict prior commentary, which primarily advocated for withholding test data from the legal system. Recommendations are offered for psychologists and psychological organizations regarding test data disclosure. Seeking protective orders is likely to be more successful than challenging disclosure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)