Legality of purchasing Assessment materials from 3rd parties?

[Groupthink]

Hi everyone. I am a first year student in a Psy.D. program with a small query.

In order to purchase testing materials from Pearson, I have to fulfill Qualification C (i.e., have completed my doctoral training). (http://www.pearsonassessments.com/h...uctsAndServices/HowToOrder/Qualifications.htm)

However, I am wholly unfamiliar with the process of purchasing testing materials. Are there laws, or ethical boundaries demarcated by the APA, that state that I must have an appropriate degree and/or be licensed in order to purchase and/or own testing materials in general? (meaning, outside of Pearson)

Pearson's Terms and Conditions notes: "To protect their security and value, Products may not be resold, re-licensed, transferred or otherwise further distributed without prior written permission from Pearson. Reselling on any online site or by any other method is strictly prohibited and will disqualify the reseller from future purchases of Pearson Products or Services." (http://www.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ca/legal/terms.htm)

However, this says nothing of the buyer.

Would I be breaking laws or ethical codes if I were to, say, purchase a WAIS-III kit from someone on Ebay?

Later on down the road, when I am licensed and can do assessment batteries, will I be unable to legally use testing materials purchased from a 3rd party because I circumvented Pearson?

My confusion with these questions comes from the idea of Record Forms. It appears to me that for any actual WAIS-IV assessment, I must use a Pearson-purchased record form. Pearson's T&C states: "The Customer's purchase of Pearson Products does not grant the Customer a right to reproduce additional copies of materials or content or enter any content into a computer medium, such as non-Pearson scoring system or software."

How does this fit into something like the Rorschach, for instance? I can purchase Rorschach Plates through Pearson (with C-level qualification) and Recording Blanks, but as far as I know there are plenty of places where Rorschach plates are purchasable outside of Pearson. (I am not sure on the recording blanks)

Does this mean that purchase and use of Rorschach cards outside of Pearson's knowledge can ultimately condemn my relationship with Pearson?

My apologies for so many questions, but I find the legalities of testing materials quite confounding!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Why would you need to buy these materials at this point in your career? Also, WAIS-iii is too outdated to be ethically used at this point (which is probably why someone shady is selling it on eBay).

Dr. E

 

[Groupthink]

Why would you need to buy these materials at this point in your career? Also, WAIS-iii is too outdated to be ethically used at this point.

Dr. E

No need to purchase them this early on -- my apologies if I was implying I had interest in purchasing them. This is just me going on and questioning things I probably shouldn't be thinking about at this point in my education. 😛

I've just heard stories of "retiring" clinicians selling off their testing materials on the cheap, and questioning the legality of that and how that varies across Pearson-developed and non-Pearson developed tests.

WAIS-III was used as an example specifically because it is now outdated. It is unethical to use, but does that change the legality of purchasing/owning it without the proper qualifications?

 

[paramour]

Why would you need to buy these materials at this point in your career? Also, WAIS-iii is too outdated to be ethically used at this point (which is probably why someone shady is selling it on eBay).

Dr. E

I wish someone would that to the folks where I work. 🙄

 

[erg923]

What do we think is "outdated" about the WAIS-III exactly? Is there a new theory of intelligence associated with it? is it more psychometrically reliable? Has the Flynn effect kicked in all the sudden.

If none are true, then only reason I can think of to classify it as "outdated" is because a Pearson says so....

 

[VAneurodoc]

Why would you need to buy these materials at this point in your career? Also, WAIS-iii is too outdated to be ethically used at this point (which is probably why someone shady is selling it on eBay).

Dr. E

Why is it outdated? Because Pearson says so? I could argue it is unethical to use the WAIS-IV since there is a paucity of independent data with clinical populations versus the volumes of research done on the WAIS-III.

 

[erg923]

Kinda stepping on my point there VAneurodoc...

 

[VAneurodoc]

Why is it outdated? Because Pearson says so? I could argue it is unethical to use the WAIS-IV since there is a paucity of independent data with clinical populations versus the volumes of research done on the WAIS-III.

Sorry about that. Saw yours after mine posted. The keyword of today for me is "refresh."

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Ethics codes are pretty clear about using outdated tests. Updated norms are important. My opinion (and even the opinion of the extremely cheapskate practice that I work for) is that WAIS-IV has been out so long that WAIS-III is too old to defend at this point. Is this Pearson trying to make a buck? Likely. But I'm not going to write reports that a chunk of the profession will consider to be cutting corners because I am too cheap to buy or learn a new test.

Dr. E

 

[VAneurodoc]

Ethics codes are pretty clear about using outdated tests. Updated norms are important. My opinion (and even the opinion of the extremely cheapskate practice that I work for) is that WAIS-IV has been out so long that WAIS-III is too old to defend at this point. Is this Pearson trying to make a buck? Likely. But I'm not going to write reports that a chunk of the profession will consider to be cutting corners because I am too cheap to buy or learn a new test.

Dr. E

The ethics code is in no way clear as it relates to WAIS-III vs WAIS-IV. Too old to defend? Would you like to compare empricial studies on these measures? I could just as easily say the IV is too new to defend. There has to be an empirical argument that the WAIS-III is obsolete/outdated. There is none, yet. A new version being available is not an argument. For example, what if the new version of a test turns out to have poor sensitive or specificity with respect to clinical populations? Is the old, well validated version, still obsolete/outdated? I do not think it is unreasonable to switch to the WAIS-IV, but saying the WAIS-III should not be used any more is not justified at this point.

I own both III & IV. I use the WAIS-III exclusively in my forensic practice. Not to be cheap, but simply because there is much more empirical support for its use in TBI populations. Until the WAIS-IV has more independent validation in TBI populations, I will not switch. This is not even remotely a violation of the ethics code.

 

[paramour]

The ethics code is in no way clear as it relates to WAIS-III vs WAIS-IV. Too old to defend? Would you like to compare empricial studies on these measures? I could just as easily say the IV is too new to defend. There has to be an empirical argument that the WAIS-III is obsolete/outdated. There is none, yet. A new version being available is not an argument. For example, what if the new version of a test turns out to have poor sensitive or specificity with respect to clinical populations? Is the old, well validated version, still obsolete/outdated? I do not think it is unreasonable to switch to the WAIS-IV, but saying the WAIS-III should not be used any more is not justified at this point.

I own both III & IV. I use the WAIS-III exclusively in my forensic practice. Not to be cheap, but simply because there is much more empirical support for its use in TBI populations. Until the WAIS-IV has more independent validation in TBI populations, I will not switch. This is not even remotely a violation of the ethics code.

I've heard this from others who perform neuropsych evals. They almost solely rely on the WAIS-III or they will use particular subtests of the WAIS-III (although they have access to the WAIS-IV and do use it depending on the situation).

My complaint is that the ONLY reason my site continues to use the WAIS-III is because they truly are too cheap to replace it. I was trained on the WAIS-IV but had to pick up on the WAIS-III (thankfully, it wasn't that complicated 😛 ). I truly don't mind that much, except that my WAIS-III experience has quickly overshadowed the WAIS-IV. Although I understand the similarities, I'm concerned that others may come to question this or find it an issue if they ever pay attention to a breakdown of my hours (say, like, oh, during internship applications).

 

[Doctor Eliza]

The ethics code is in no way clear as it relates to WAIS-III vs WAIS-IV. Too old to defend? Would you like to compare empricial studies on these measures? I could just as easily say the IV is too new to defend. There has to be an empirical argument that the WAIS-III is obsolete/outdated. There is none, yet. A new version being available is not an argument. For example, what if the new version of a test turns out to have poor sensitive or specificity with respect to clinical populations? Is the old, well validated version, still obsolete/outdated? I do not think it is unreasonable to switch to the WAIS-IV, but saying the WAIS-III should not be used any more is not justified at this point.

I own both III & IV. I use the WAIS-III exclusively in my forensic practice. Not to be cheap, but simply because there is much more empirical support for its use in TBI populations. Until the WAIS-IV has more independent validation in TBI populations, I will not switch. This is not even remotely a violation of the ethics code.

Fair enough, we have a very different frame of reference. I am not a neuropsychologist. I primarily use the WAIS in ADHD assessments for college students. I agree, based on what you stated, that you have valid reasons for using the older measure with your population and ethics are on your side. I do not think that in my case, I could defend using III any longer.

I also think that paramour's practicum site is doing the students a disservice by giving them more exposure to the older measure rather than the newer one.

Dr. E

 

[VAneurodoc]

I also think that paramour's practicum site is doing the students a disservice by giving them more exposure to the older measure rather than the newer one.

Dr. E

I agree. In fact, my VA interns and externs only use the IV except in cases of re-evals.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I own both III & IV. I use the WAIS-III exclusively in my forensic practice. Not to be cheap, but simply because there is much more empirical support for its use in TBI populations. Until the WAIS-IV has more independent validation in TBI populations, I will not switch. This is not even remotely a violation of the ethics code.

I use the WAIS-IV for my neuropsych evals, though the research can be less robust for some/many special populations that aren't as well represented in the standard norms. I think a case can be made for either choice, as long as the clinician is familiar with the supportive research for each and the advantages/pitfalls associated with each. I was originally trained on the III and I prefer the sub-tests (as a whole) on the III to the IV, but I made the switch to the IV after reading quite a bit of the research.

I don't regularly do forensic evals (at least evals meant for litigation or referrals directly from the courts), but I can definitely understand the reasoning. Heck...some courts will raise a stink if a TOMM isn't given, even with the presence of other validity measures and in light of the known limitations with it because of over-exposure/coaching, but it is just ingrained in the system.

Speaking of....time to

 

[erg923]

Ethics codes are pretty clear about using outdated tests. Updated norms are important. My opinion (and even the opinion of the extremely cheapskate practice that I work for) is that WAIS-IV has been out so long that WAIS-III is too old to defend at this point. Is this Pearson trying to make a buck? Likely. But I'm not going to write reports that a chunk of the profession will consider to be cutting corners because I am too cheap to buy or learn a new test.

Dr. E

What makes a test "outdated?" Honestly, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? They (a test company) build it, so within a certain time period it becomes unethical to use? is that scientific?

 

[Doctor Eliza]

What makes a test "outdated?" Honestly, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? They (a test company) build it, so within a certain time period it becomes unethical to use? is that scientific?

What do you think? Certainly you aren't suggesting that you can use the same tests forever?

 

[VAneurodoc]

What makes a test "outdated?" Honestly, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? They (a test company) build it, so within a certain time period it becomes unethical to use? is that scientific?

This is one of the references I have used when the issue of me using the WAIS-III is brought up by opposing counsel's psychologist.

Loring & Bauer (2010). Testing the limits: Cautions and concerns regarding the new Wechsler IQ and memory scales. Neurology, 74, 685-990.

Also, David Schretlen has recently published a normative system for a battery made up of pre-existing tests which included the WMS-R Logical Memory and Visual Reproductions. His justification (from the CNNS Professional Manual, 2010) included their continued use in aging and memory studies and the volume of research done with these measures which argues for their clinical utility. He finished it of with "measures should not be considered "outdated" simply because newer versions, which subsequently have less validation evidence, exist."

 

[erg923]

What do you think? Certainly you aren't suggesting that you can use the same tests forever?

I'm suggesting we operationalize the definition based on some scientific evidence/proposition/rationale. I dont know the answer. What do I tell my students?

What would you tell a student if you were a professor? Certainly you cant justify saying, "um, when Pearson tells you to." (cause they are selling a new version) You are in a PP, doesn't this issue come up? I cant imagine they shelled out thousands of dollars without a second thought as to why. If they did, I would kinda wonder were the doctoral level critical thinking skills went to. I'm curious what their thought is on this.

Regarding "using test forever," the CVLT is just a list learning task from the cog psychologists in the 50s. Trail making is from army alpha tests from WWI. We get better norms over the years, but are you suggesting that because the test is old, that the test is "bad."

 

[MBellows]

What do you think? Certainly you aren't suggesting that you can use the same tests forever?

Rorschach says what?