AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 11, relative to psychological materials.
HB0677 amends Tennessee law governing psychological and neuropsychological testing materials by creating a new section in Title 63, Chapter 11 on the protection of psychological data and materials. The bill defines “test materials and test data” to include specific test items, manuals, instruments, protocols, and test stimuli, and it requires that these materials be kept secure to preserve the validity of testing and protect public safety.
The bill allows patients access to test responses in their records, but not to the underlying test materials and test data. Those materials may be released only to psychologists, senior psychological examiners, or other properly trained experts who have a legal and ethical duty to protect test integrity, with a narrower rule applying when the materials were prepared for civil, criminal, forensic, or administrative proceedings. The bill also prohibits third-party observers and audio/video recording during test administration, subject to limited exceptions for documented disabilities, language interpretation, minors when deemed appropriate by the examiner, and supervision of trainees.
The bill would add a new statutory protection for psychological and neuropsychological test security in Tennessee, limiting disclosure of test content and related materials while preserving patient access to their own test responses. It would affect psychologists, senior psychological examiners, other licensed professionals, patients, attorneys, insurers, interpreters, and parties involved in litigation or administrative proceedings by restricting who may observe testing and who may receive sensitive testing materials.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally supportive posture toward protecting the integrity of psychological testing and the public safety interests tied to valid assessments. The legislative findings emphasize concerns about misuse, manipulation, and compromised test validity, indicating a policy preference for confidentiality and standardized administration. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call history.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s limits on access to test materials and its ban on third-party observers and recording during testing. These restrictions could be viewed as necessary to preserve test security by psychologists and testing professionals, but they may be opposed by patients, attorneys, insurers, or other parties who want independent review of testing in custody, competency, disability, or forensic disputes. The bill addresses some of that concern by allowing release to other qualified experts and by creating exceptions for disability accommodations, language interpretation, minors, and trainee supervision.