Psychology Test Copyright Question

[Wesearchwefind]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello All -

I am starting a research study where we will be using a number of established personality tests. I have contacted the publishing companies and found that after signing an agreement we can put these tests on a 3rd party online resource (i.e., surveymonkey) to assess on the computer.

I am familiar with copyright rules that prohibit the production of the assessment without permission....however, my question is:

*can we develop an SPSS syntax that will score the test or is that infringing on copyright???

Most of these tests have instructions on how to score the test in the manual, so I wasn't sure if it was illegal to use that to develop a scoring syntax. Of course I WOULD NOT be using it for any sort of financial means (i.e., clinical practice where I would be earning money)....however, the reason for doing this is because these companies charge close to $6.00 per write up (which is only the T-scores) and we do not have external resources for funding!!

Thanks for your input!

 

[JockNerd]

You can do that. People do it all the time for studies using the MMPI-2.

 

[PsyDr]

according to case law, the companies "own" the formulas. creating your own scoring program is considered a violation of copyright laws.

there have been several cases wherein individuals attempted to create a scoring company (e.g., "you send in the protocol, we'll score it for you"). they got the crap beat out of them in court. the court ruled that the formulas and their use were the property of the copyright holder.

 

[JockNerd]

there have been several cases wherein individuals attempted to create a scoring company (e.g., "you send in the protocol, we'll score it for you"). they got the crap beat out of them in court. the court ruled that the formulas and their use were the property of the copyright holder.

But they were trying to earn money off scoring that protocol, right? That's different from using it in a research setting, from my understanding. And since I've read studies that used copyrighted tests on a few hundred people, and didn't cite any grant support, I can't imagine that they were paying for every test.

The MMPI-2 book lists all the items for all the scales in the back, including all the supplementary scales. Just sayin' 🙂

 

[PsyDr]

legally, it is not different. in the eyes of the copyright owner, it probably is different.

i doubt pearson will come after you though.

but i will also guess that pearson, like many other corporate test publishers, will do the work pro bono if you explain the research.

 

[Thrak]

*can we develop an SPSS syntax that will score the test or is that infringing on copyright???

Will you be distributing the syntax outside of the department?

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

But they were trying to earn money off scoring that protocol, right? That's different from using it in a research setting, from my understanding. And since I've read studies that used copyrighted tests on a few hundred people, and didn't cite any grant support, I can't imagine that they were paying for every test.

The MMPI-2 book lists all the items for all the scales in the back, including all the supplementary scales. Just sayin' 🙂

I just heard about a situation where a psych department had created an MMPI scoring program for the grad students and got sued. So yes, even with research and teaching, you're not supposed to.

 

[erg923]

I just heard about a situation where a psych department had created an MMPI scoring program for the grad students and got sued. So yes, even with research and teaching, you're not supposed to.

Really? That doesnt make much since to me. I, and many other neuropsychologists develop (and share with collegues) our own homemade excel scoring sheets for dozens of psych and neuropsych tests. WAIS, BDI, GDS, DRS, RBANS, OPIE-3, BSI, STAI, SCL-90, you name it. It decreases the risk for error in adding up scores and looking up norms, and decreases time to score a batttery. Am I to understand that this is somehow illegal or unethical as well?

 

[PsyDr]

erg,

illegal=yup.

common place= yup

 

[HenryHall]

erg,
illegal=yup.
common place= yup

Copyright protects forms of expression, including derivative works.
It does not cover algorithms, including scoring algorithms.

If you want to use their scoring chart to make a scoring system of your own then you need to seek permission.

If you want to figure out the answers for yourself and devise your own scoring system then you do not need copyright permission. Even if the end result computer program is certain to be the same.

The issue is not whether you might have copied, but whether you did, in fact, copy without permission. If you explain to the copyright holder why what you are doing is fair use (mostly that it enhances or at least does not diminish demand for their product) then that improves your chance of being granted permission.

For this reason map makers invariably insert fake artifacts (sometimes called "Easter-eggs") in their maps. After all one map of an area should look much the same as another map of the same place. But if the fake artifact appears in the copy then the copier is caught. It is common for people to report mis-spelled road names to map publishers not realizing that the error was intentional. It is likely that psych test publishers do something analogous with their score charts.

 

[PsyDr]

henry hall,

oops. i stand corrected. the normative DATA is copyrighted. not the algorithms.


doesn't change too much of my assertion though.

 

[Wesearchwefind]

thanks for all the comments.....although it still is a bit confusing....

sounds like people are saying that I can use the algorithms but then I can't compare it to their normative data w/out permission???

It won't be distributed outside of the study & we have purchased the manuals & will buy each administration.....hmmmm.....still a little unclear...


here's a question....should I just ask the company that distributes the test???

 

[Shallot]

Well, just to bring up an analogy and speculate:

The procedure that a recipe expresses can't be copyrighted (only the particular descriptive text) -- you can write up a recipe that uses different descriptions but that indicates the same procedure to create the same dish and not infringe copyright.

It seems like there's a good chance, though this is just my speculation, that similarly, a scoring system cannot be copyrighted, only the particular way the scoring system is expressed (e.g. the text and look and feel of the scoring instructions). If you create another way of scoring the test that is expressed quite differently (let's say in SPSS), that might be analogous to the recipe case above, even if you are getting the basic procedure from the official scoring instructions.

Just because someone sues (as people have mentioned above) you doesn't mean they have the law on their side.

Also, even if it would be copyright infringement otherwise, there's also a possibility your non-commercial use would be fair use and thus legal in any case.

PSYDR, do you know the names of any of the cases which held against the companies which would score tests and had the "crap" beaten out of them? 🙂

 

[HenryHall]

oops. i stand corrected. the normative DATA is copyrighted. not the algorithms.

It's the expression of the data that is copyright, not the data itself.

If you want to (over)simplify you can think of it this way:-
If I own a piece of intelligent property that is in the form of a writing, a drawing or a music, then Copyright tends to give me protection against unauthorized lookalikes. But Copyright does not protect me against unauthorized workalikes.

If I have a data table then unauthorized people cannot copy my table. But they can use my numbers - just not to create a table that looks even slightly like mine. Be careful when building a workalike not to accidentally create a lookalike. You can use the data but not its form of expression. There is lots of scope, for example converting letter grades to GPAs or vice-versa would be using data but not its expression.

doesn't change too much of my assertion though.

However, your assertion is open to multiple interpretations. Some of which are valid and others are not. And, yes, it's true, that that situation is not much changed.

 

[PsyDr]

shallot,

no problem. i'll look on my computers and find the reference(s).

 

[JockNerd]

Also, even if it would be copyright infringement otherwise, there's also a possibility your non-commercial use would be fair use and thus legal in any case.

I think you got it here.

One of my profs has asked the MMPI people and the 16PF people about their scoring algorithms, and let them know that he scores his own for research. They didn't care (but the 16PF people were uncooperative about letting out their strange scoring algorithm).

 

[HenryHall]

... Also, even if it would be copyright infringement otherwise, there's also a possibility your non-commercial use would be fair use and thus legal in any case. ...

I think you got it here.
One of my profs has asked the MMPI people and the 16PF people about their scoring algorithms, and let them know that he scores his own for research. They didn't care (but the 16PF people were uncooperative about letting out their strange scoring algorithm).

If you are going that route then for goodness sake look at the issue of whether or not particular use is "non-commercial" and "fair usage" from the standpoint of the intellectual property owners. Put yourself in their shoes, so to speak.

For example, if I own a valuable music (whether in the form of a five-line manuscript, a lyrics, a recorded performance or whatever form) then it is emphatically not OK for you to be giving all my music away for free no matter how non-commercial that giving is.

Or you can think of it this way. The various conditions of fair usage provide that it is not necessary to get express permission in every case - when the circumstances are such that no reasonable owner would have refused permission. However not all owners are indeed reasonable. For example, even though the Church of Scientology expressly forbids use of any of their copyright texts, nonetheless certain brief excerpts for purposes of critical review fall under fair usage. Wholesale distribution, without permission, of their material in its entirety clearly is not fair usage however.

 

[hermionephd]

Please excuse my naivete, but if you suspect that somebody is breaking copyright law (e.g., using an illegal pirated scoring program in a scenario where money is being made), how do you go about reporting this? Would you go to the publisher, APA, ...? After attempting to deal with it informally, of course.

 

[Thrak]

Please excuse my naivete, but if you suspect that somebody is breaking copyright law (e.g., using an illegal pirated scoring program in a scenario where money is being made), how do you go about reporting this? Would you go to the publisher, APA, ...? After attempting to deal with it informally, of course.

My guess would be the publisher. I'm not sure what the APA would do about it, unless they owned the copyright.

This would bring up bigger questions, though. How big of an operation it is, how much money is being made, the exact nature of the piracy (is it a cracked version of legitimate software, or something homegrown, are they distributing or selling the pirated program, or just using it in-house, etc.).