Introduction

Psychometric testing appears in nearly every psychological assessment that reaches the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Across 25 LAT decisions where psychometric testing was central, one pattern stands out: no single instrument wins cases. What wins is the fit between the battery, the diagnosis, and the record.

Reports that trace the diagnosis to the scores, include validity testing, and review the clinical records get weight. Reports that skip any one of those pieces get set aside. This post walks through the instruments the Tribunal actually sees, the cases where testing carried the claim, the cases where it did not, and what the pattern means for assessors and clinic directors. For the deeper dive on the single most decisive category of tests, start with our breakdown of validity testing and the SIMS at the LAT.

The Testing Landscape: What Instruments Actually Appear

Across the decisions, the instruments fall into three groups.

Symptom self-report measures. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-2), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90-R), Pain Patient Profile (P-3), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Brief Battery for Health Improvement (BBHI-2), Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MDI), Cornell Medical Index (CMI), and Basic Personality Inventory (BPI). These measure what the patient reports feeling.

Personality and trauma measures. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI-2). These go broader than symptoms.

Validity measures. The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), and Rey-15 Item Test. These test whether the self-report data can be trusted at all.

The split that matters in the case law is not which symptom scale was used. Claimant batteries that were given little weight were almost always symptom self-report measures with no validity test attached. Insurer batteries that won weight were typically self-report measures plus a validity test, plus a records review. The instruments overlap; the design of the battery is where the cases divide.

The Wins: When Testing Carries the Claim

A 2022 Aviva dispute (2022 CanLII 120024) is the cleanest example of a psychometric win. The applicant's assessor ran the BDI-2 (moderate depression), BAI (severe anxiety), and P-3, then diagnosed based on the clinical interview plus those results. The insurer's own assessor also ran psychometric testing and independently found moderate depression. The adjudicator placed great weight on that convergence and removed the applicant from the MIG with a funded psychological assessment. When both sides' numbers agree, the testing becomes close to unrebuttable.

Testing beats no testing. In 16-004675/AABS v. Certas (2018 CanLII 2305), one assessor ran psychometric tests and the other ran none. The adjudicator preferred the tested report, holding that "the inclusion of psychometric tests produces a more sustained analysis." The IBM and LAT lines repeat this theme: a psychologist who tests is preferred over one who only interviews.

The diagnosis must be traceable to the scores. In a 2024 Belair dispute (2024 CanLII 97882), the preferred assessor "outlined a clear connection between his psychometric testing and his diagnosis," while the competing diagnosis "seems to conflict with the results of the interview portion and the psychometric testing." Testing does not just add data. It forces the diagnosis and the numbers to point the same way, and adjudicators check.

Methodology can rescue an unusual format. In a 2026 TD dispute (2026 CanLII 53737), a video assessment won where the assessor combined psychometrics, a clinical interview, and a records review into one report. The claim escaped the MIG and a psychological assessment was funded. The testing worked because it was not floating alone; it was anchored to the file and to firsthand observation.

The Losses: Six Ways a Battery Gets Set Aside

1. No validity testing. In a 2026 Allstate dispute (2026 CanLII 34355), the Tribunal gave little weight to "subjective psychometric testing that does not offer any validity testing to confirm the accuracy or the proportionality of the applicant's self report." A battery of self-report scales with no validity measure is read as the patient's own story in numbers. The SIMS line of cases, from a Co-operators decision through a Coseco decision, shows how routinely the Tribunal reaches for the validity score first. See our full validity testing analysis.

2. Scores at odds with the diagnosis. In a 2024 Economical dispute (2024 CanLII 94152), the diagnosis was "at odds with the applicant's self-reporting and the psychometric testing." In a 2026 Co-operators dispute (2026 CanLII 21056), the Tribunal followed A.R. v. Coseco (2020 CanLII 30389): little weight where testing did not align with the diagnosis. A report that cannot explain its own numbers invites the adjudicator to throw out both.

3. No rationale for the battery choice. In a 2021 Aviva dispute (2021 CanLII 111151), the assessor ran only the BBHI-2, P-3, and TOMM, and "no rationale was provided for the choice of psychometric tests." A narrow battery that skips instruments measuring the disputed conditions loses, even when it includes a validity test.

4. The wrong validity instrument. In a 2024 Economical dispute (2024 CanLII 28815), the competing report's only validity measure was the Rey-15, which measures memory amplification, in a case where memory was never at issue. A validity test aimed at the wrong domain earns no credit.

5. Scores that cut against the claimant. Testing is a double-edged tool. In a 2023 Wawanesa dispute (2023 CanLII 2707), the insurer's testing produced scores "much higher than even in-patient psychiatric populations," an exaggeration flag. In a 2025 Wawanesa dispute (2025 CanLII 129064), the claimant's own assessor found no psychological impairment on anxiety and depression measures. Run the tests, and the numbers belong to both sides.

6. Testing without the records. In a 2026 Unifund dispute (2026 CanLII 29569), a section 25 report lost to the section 44 report even though both sides' psychometric results corroborated each other. The section 25 assessor had not reviewed the file. In a 2024 Unifund dispute (2024 CanLII 892), the assessor was given no medical records at all. Testing that floats above the clinical history loses to testing that engages with it.

The Limits: More Testing Is Not Always Better

The rule is weight, not volume. In a 2026 Security National dispute (2026 CanLII 64882), the Tribunal accepted a psychiatrist's clinical diagnosis with no psychometric testing at all, noting the psychiatrist "was trained to diagnose and assess and treat psychiatric disorders without the use of psychometric testing." Extra testing by the applicant's assessor added no weight.

In 17-005791 v. Aviva (2019 CanLII 72223), a reconsideration upheld the preference for a self-report battery without major validity indexes, confirming that a validity gap is a weighing factor, not an automatic disqualifier. And in a 2024 Economical dispute (2024 CanLII 97878), a proper in-person assessment with a BDI-2 showing moderate depression was still denied because the report failed to establish a psychological condition warranting MIG removal. Testing is evidence. It does not replace the diagnosis or the need for treatment.

What Testing Costs, and Who Pays When the Battery Fails

The fees are the stakes. A $2,494.54 psychometric testing OCF-18 was denied as not reasonable and necessary in a 2021 Aviva dispute (2021 CanLII 314). A $4,400 neuropsychological assessment with psychometric testing met the same fate in a 2023 Allstate dispute (2023 CanLII 116466).

Two billing realities make a failed battery expensive. First, section 25(5)(a) of the Schedule caps assessment fees at $2,000, and psychometric testing cannot be unbundled as a standalone assessment to dodge the cap; it is a component of the psychological or neuropsychological assessment. Second, a denied assessment usually drags the dependent treatment plans down with it. For the mechanics of defending assessment and treatment fees, see our posts on billing above guideline rates and the 2026 decisions affecting HCAI invoicing.

Conclusion

The battery that wins at the LAT is built like a legal argument. It uses instruments that measure the disputed conditions, includes validity testing, reviews the medical records, and ends in a diagnosis the scores actually support. Before a psych assessment goes to the insurer, run this checklist against the report:

  • Do the scores and the diagnosis agree, and does the report say so?
  • Is there a validity measure, aimed at the right domain?
  • Does the report explain why each instrument was chosen?
  • Was the assessor given the clinical records, and does the report show it?
  • If the scores show low or normal results, has the report addressed what that means for the claim?

A psych plan that falls apart at the Tribunal usually falls apart on one of these five points, as the psych-versus-chiro split in a Security National decision shows. Fix the battery before the file is submitted. It costs far less than losing the assessment, the plan, and the follow-up treatment in one hearing.