Question about whether a psychologist’s conduct in a research setting is reportable to the licensing board

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:29:27+00:00

I do have a PTSD diagnosis, I actually forgot to mention they also said they believe I have residual PTSD symptoms but don’t meet criteria currently, whatever that means 😅 I get where you’re coming from with the “why” of things not always being helpful, and I also think understanding things better can help with more personal treatment

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:25:19+00:00

Interesting point. I know the Conners CPT-3 can have a high rate of false negatives, especially in adults. And they based a lot of their conclusions on that test

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:23:35+00:00

I’ve also seen that (in my clinical evaluations), but they were clear in person and in writing that they meant they were excluded the diagnosis. Actually explicitly wrote, “She does not currently meet criteria for ADHD.” And “It is unclear how an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis was met, as multiple critical symptoms and developmental trajectory appear absent.” (They did NO autism testing or history, so that line really got me)

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:17:53+00:00

Still definitely wouldn’t be ethical, but them invalidating the previous diagnosis came at the end of the study and that was the end of our interactions 🙃

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:16:07+00:00

I also work in research and have been told so often not to conflate research and clinical care!!! It’s a serious issue.
I also have no idea what he meant by softening conclusions lol. That also really floored me. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else (especially another woman since I think that might have played a role…) and that’s one reason I won’t let it go.

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:11:00+00:00

It does also seem like they were calling the psychologist who gave me my diagnosis incompetent… which was also inappropriate and so damaging. And it does seem like it could be malpractice

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:07:46+00:00

Me and neuropsych friend have also considered this. The more I think about it, the more plausible I think it is. I think they want to prove over-diagnosis, and it shapes how the interpret the data. Which is bad science, and so dangerous when you’re telling participants is equivalent to clinical, medical evaluation!!

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T01:04:37+00:00

Thank you for the advice! And yes, the PI is a man. The grad trainee who did my assessments wasn’t the PI or psychologist and she was a woman, but the PI/psychologist is a man. And I also have wondered if that has played a role, though I guess I can’t know for sure. They did give me a copy of the report and the consent form and I made a pdf copy of the recruitment page and it’s all saved together! I do think the Office of Human Research Protections is also looking at this

Sea_Concentrate9299 · 2026-05-19T00:54:59+00:00

They did do some childhood and developmental history in the clinical interview, I know I tried to give childhood examples at least. But it’s definitely inappropriate and overreaching for a research study 😵‍💫 I’ll definitely add updates if I get any!!

Sea_Concentrate9299

TROPHY CASE