header-logo header-logo

Cognitive assessments: dangerously remote?

15 March 2024 / Dr Tanya Garrett
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Career focus
printer mail-detail
163732
Psychologist Dr Tanya Garrett explains the risks of exclusively remote cognitive functioning & capacity assessments
  • Warns of the risks of remotely performed cognitive functioning, capacity and other psychological assessments.
  • Advises that solicitors should not commission these on a remote basis, and should alert the court in the event of any assessment being carried out remotely.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I continued to offer all assessments in person, using personal protective equipment and social distancing. I felt this was important because so much of a psychologist’s assessment is based on rapport-building to ensure accurate information is provided and to assist clients when sharing difficult and personal information, as well as observing non-verbal communication, all of which are difficult to do remotely. However, I know many psychologists started offering remote assessments, including cognitive functioning/capacity assessments, and that this is still going on. I would suggest this was never necessary and that doing it now is not only unnecessary, but likely inappropriate unless under certain circumstances, as well as potentially misleading.

I first became concerned when I saw cognitive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll