1932

Abstract

We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include () foundational validity of the assessment; () validity of the assessment as applied; () management and mitigation of bias; () attention to quality assurance; () appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; () explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; () weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and () adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148
2022-10-18
2024-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman MJ. 2006. Forensic report writing. J. Clin. Psychol. 62:59–72
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Acklin MW, Fuger K, Gowensmith W. 2015. Examiner agreement and judicial consensus in forensic mental health evaluations. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 15:318–43
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ægisdóttir S, White MJ, Spengler PM, Maugherman AS, Anderson LA et al. 2006. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns. Psychol. 34:341–82
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc., Am. Psychol. Assoc. (AERA), Natl. Counc. Meas. Educ. (NCME) 2014. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington, DC: Am. Educ. Res. Assoc.These standards provide authoritative guidance for test development and criteria for evaluating test quality.
  5. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2009. Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. Guidel., Am. Psychol. Assoc. Washington, DC: http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody
  6. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2010. Psychology as a core science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) discipline Rep., Am. Psychol. Assoc. Washington, DC: https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/stem-report.pdf
  7. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2013a. Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Am. Psychol. 68:7–19Authoritative aspirational guidelines for forensic psychology adopted by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2013b. Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. Am. Psychol. 68:20–31
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2017. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
  10. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2018. Professional practice guidelines for occupationally mandated psychological evaluations. Am. Psychol. 73:186–97
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2020. APA guidelines for psychological assessment and evaluation Guidel., APA Washington, DC: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf
  12. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA) 2021. APA professional practice guidelines Guidel., APA Washington, DC: https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines
  13. Archer RP, Wheeler EMA, Vauter RA. 2016. Empirically supported forensic assessment. Clin. Psychol. 23:348–64
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Aust. Psychol. Soc. (APS) 2007. Code of ethics Doc., Aust. Psychol. Soc. Melbourne, Aust: https://psychology.org.au/getmedia/d873e0db-7490-46de-bb57-c31bb1553025/aps-code-of-ethics.pdf
  15. Aust. Psychol. Soc. (APS) 2014. Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts Doc., Aust. Psychol. Soc. Melbourne, Aust: https://psychology.org.au/for-members/resource-finder/resources/ethics/ethical-guidelines-psychological-practice-forensic
  16. Ballantyne KN, Edmond G, Found B. 2017. Peer review in forensic science. Forensic Sci. Int. 277:66–76
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bell S, Sah S, Albright TD, Gates SJ, Denton MB et al. 2018. A call for more science in forensic science. PNAS 115:4541–44
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Benjamin LT Jr. 2019. A Brief History of Modern Psychology New York: Wiley. , 3rd ed..
  19. Boccaccini MT, Turner DB, Murrie DC. 2008. Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14:262–83
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, van Heerden J. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychol. Rev. 111:1061–71
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brook C, Lynøe N, Eriksson A, Balding D. 2021. Retraction of a peer reviewed article suggests ongoing problems with Australian forensic science. Forensic Sci. Int. 3:100208
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Can. Psychol. Assoc. (CPA) 2013. The pre-employment clinical assessment of police candidates: principles and guidelines for Canadian psychologists Guidel., CPA Ottawa, Can: https://cpa.ca/docs/File/News/2013-07/Police%20assess%20guidelines%20April2013final.pdf
  23. Can. Psychol. Assoc. (CPA) 2017. Canadian code of ethics for psychologists Doc., CPA Ottawa, Can: https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf
  24. Can. Psychol. Assoc. (CPA) 2021. CPA publications https://cpa.ca/thecpastore/purchasecpapublications/
  25. Candilis PJ, Neal TMS. 2014. Not just welfare over justice: ethics in forensic consultation. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 19:19–29
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carlson JF, Geisinger KF, Jonson JL, eds. 2021. The Twenty-First Mental Measurements Yearbook Lincoln: Buros Cent. Test https://buros.org/mental-measurements-yearbook The Mental Measurements Yearbook, a reference series, offers critical reviews of psychological tests (including a la carte).
  27. Cassidy MF, Buede D. 2009. Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense: caveat emptor. Manag. Decis. 47:454–69
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Clark LA, Watson D. 2019. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol. Asses. 31:1412–27
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cooper GS, Meterko V. 2019. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic Sci. Int. 297:35–46
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52:281–302
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cunliffe E, Edmond G. 2021. Justice without science? Judging the reliability of forensic science in Canada. Can. Bar Rev. 99:65–112
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 1993.)
  33. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. 1989. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243:1668–74
    [Google Scholar]
  34. DeMatteo D, Olver ME. 2022. Use of the psychopathy checklist-revised in legal contexts: validity, reliability, admissibility, and evidentiary issues. J. Personal. Assess. 104:234–51
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Mangolamara 2007. WASC 71 (Aust.)
  36. Dror IE, Kukucka J. 2021. Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E): a general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Sci. Int. 3:100161
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dror IE, Murrie DC. 2018. A hierarchy of expert performance applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychol. Public Policy Law 24:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Edens JF, Boccaccini MT. 2017. Taking forensic mental health assessment “out of the lab” and into “the real world”: introduction to the special issue on the field utility of forensic assessment instruments and procedures. Psychol. Asses. 29:599–610
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Edens JF, Cox J, Smith ST, DeMatteo D, Sörman K. 2015. How reliable are Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores in Canadian criminal trials? A case law review. Psychol. Assess. 27:447–56
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Edmond G. 2011. The admissibility of incriminating expert opinion evidence in the US, England and Canada. Judic. Off. Bull. 23:67–70
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Edmond G. 2015. Forensic science evidence and the conditions for rational (jury) evaluation. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 39:77–127
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Edmond G, Cunliffe E, Martire K, San Roque M 2019. Forensic science evidence and the limits of cross-examination. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 42:858–920
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Edmond G, Found B, Martire K, Ballantyne K, Hamer D et al. 2016a. Model forensic science. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 48:496–537
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Edmond G, Hamer D, Cunliffe E. 2016b. A little ignorance is a dangerous thing: engaging with exogenous knowledge not adduced by the parties. Griffith Law Rev 25:383–413
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Edmond G, Martire K, Kemp R, Hamer D, Hibbert B et al. 2014. How to cross-examine forensic scientists: a guide for lawyers. Aust. Bar Rev. 39:174–79
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Edmond G, Martire KA. 2019. Just cognition: scientific research on bias and some implications for legal procedure and decision-making. Modern Law Rev 82:633–64
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Edmond G, Towler A, Growns B, Ribeiro G, Found B et al. 2017. Thinking forensics: cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Sci. Justice 57:144–54
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Evans JSB, Stanovich KE. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:223–41
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Evans SA, Salekin KL. 2016. Violence risk communication: What do judges and forensic clinicians prefer and understand?. J. Threat Assess. Manag. 3:143–64
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ewert v. Canada, (2018) 2 S.C.R. 165, S.C.C. 30 (Can.)
  51. Farkas G, DeLeon P, Newman R. 1997. Sanity examiner certification: an evolving national agenda. Prof. Psychol. 28:73–77
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Faust D, Ziskin J. 1988. The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science 241:31–35
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Featherston R, Downie LE, Vogel AP, Galvin KL. 2020. Decision making biases in the allied health professions: a systematic scoping review. PLOS One 15:e0240716
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Found B, Edmond G. 2012. Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 44:193–96
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Fox MJ. 1993. Quality Assurance Management New York: Springer
  56. Franceschini F, Galetto M, Cecconi P. 2006. A worldwide analysis of ISO 9000 standard diffusion: considerations and future development. Benchmarking 13:523–41
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923)
  58. Galton F. 1879. Psychometric experiments. . Brain 2:149–62
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Goodman-Delahunty J. 1997. Forensic psychological expertise in the wake of Daubert. Law Hum. Behav. 21:121–40
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Goudge ST. 2008. Inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario Rep., 4 vols Ont. Minist. Atty.-Gen. Tor., Can: www.goudgeinquiry.ca/
  61. Gowensmith WN, McCallum KE. 2019. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 49:165–76
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Gowensmith WN, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, McNichols BJ. 2017. Field reliability influences field validity: risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychol. Assess. 29:786–94
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gowensmith WN, Pinals DA, Karas AC. 2015. States’ standards for training and certifying evaluators of competency to stand trial. J. Forensic Psychol. Practice. 15:295–317
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Greenberg SA, Shuman DW. 1997. Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Prof. Psychol. 28:50–57
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Grisso T. 1987. The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment. Am. Psychol. 42:831–39
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Grisso T. 1993. The differences between forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology. Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 21:133–45
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Grisso T. 2010. Guidance for improving forensic reports: a review of common errors. Open Access J. Forensic Psychol. 2:102–15
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C. 2000. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Asses. 12:19–30
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Guarnera LA, Murrie DC. 2017. Field reliability of competency and sanity opinions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Asses. 29:795–818
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Guarnera LA, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. 2017. Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations. Transl. Issues Psychol. Sci. 3:143–52
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. 2009. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol. Assess. 21:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hare RD. 1991. Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Toronto, Can: Multi-Health Syst. Assess. , 2nd ed..
  73. Heilbrun K. 1992. The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law Hum. Behav. 16:257–72
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Heilbrun K, Brooks S. 2010. Forensic psychology and forensic science: a proposed agenda for the next decade. . Psychol. Public Policy Law 16:219–53
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Heilbrun K, Grisso T, Goldstein AM. 2009. Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment: Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressThe foundational introductory text for the 20-volume series, Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment.
  76. Heilbrun K, O'Neill ML, Stevens TN, Strohman LK, Bowman Q et al. 2004. Assessing normative approaches to communicating violence risk: a national survey of psychologists. Behav. Sci. Law. 22:187–96
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hill SJ, Homsy S., Woofter C, McDermott BE. 2022. Persistent, poor quality competency to stand trial reports: Does training matter?. Psychol. Serv. 19:206–212
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hilton NZ, Scurich N, Helmus LM. 2015. Communicating the risk of violent and offending behavior: review and introduction to this special issue. Behav Sci. Law 33::1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Howes LM, Kemp N. 2017. Discord in the communication of forensic science: Can the science of language help foster shared understanding?. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 36:196–111
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Int. Organ. Stand 1994. ISO 9000: Quality Management and Quality Assurance Standards Geneva: Int. Organ. Stand.
  81. Ireland JL. 2012. Evaluating expert witness psychological reports: exploring quality Summ. Rep., Univ. Cent. Lancashire Preston, UK: http://netk.net.au/Psychology/ExpertReports.pdf
  82. Judic. Conf. US 2021. Proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedures, and the Federal Rules of Evidence Doc. Judic. Conf. US Washington, DC: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment
  83. Kahneman D, Klein G. 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am. Psychol. 64:515–26
    [Google Scholar]
  84. King CM, Neal TMS. 2022. The unchecked rise of psychological testing evidence in United States Courts. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4hfd6
    [Crossref]
  85. Koch S, Leary DE, eds. 1992. A Century of Psychology as Science Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
  86. Kroner DG, Morrison MM, Lowder E. 2020. A principled approach to the construction of risk assessment categories: the Council of State Governments Justice Center Five-Level system. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol 64:1074–90
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Kruglanski AW, Gigerenzer G. 2011. Intuitive and deliberative judgments are based on common principles. Psychol. Rev. 118:97–109
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 1999.)
  89. Lander ES. 2018. Fixing Rule 702: the PCAST report and steps to ensure the reliability of forensic feature-comparison methods in the criminal courts. Fordham Law Rev 86:1661–79
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lang SE. 2015. Report of the Motherisk hair analysis independent review Rep., Ont. Minist Atty. Gen: http://m-hair.ca/
  91. Levy S, Bergman P, Frank A. 1999. Quality assurance in forensic science. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 4:254–55
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lewin JL. 1998. The genesis and evolution of legal uncertainty about reasonable medical certainty. Md. Law Rev. 57:380–504
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lilienfeld SO. 2012. Public skepticism of psychology: why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. Am. Psychol. 67:111–29
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lin L, Christidis P, Stamm K. 2017. Datapoint: a look at psychologists’ specialty areas: news from APA's Center for Workforce Studies. Monit. Psychol. 48:15
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lovett BJ, Harrison AG. 2019. Forensic thinking in disability assessment: an introduction to a special issue. Psychol. Injury Law 12:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  96. MacLean N, Neal TMS, Morgan RD, Murrie DC. 2019. Forensic clinicians’ understanding of bias. Psychol. Public Policy Law. 25:323–30
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Martire KA. 2018. Clear communication through clear purpose: understanding statistical statements made by forensic scientists. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 50:619–27
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Martire KA, Edmond G. 2017. Rethinking expert opinion evidence. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 40:967–98
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Mass. Dep. Mental Health 2018. Designated forensic professional procedures manual Doc. Mass. Dep. Mental Health Boston: https://www.mass.gov/doc/designated-forensic-professional-procedures-manual/download
  100. McCann JT, Lynn SJ, Lilienfeld SO, Shindler KL, Hammond Natof TR 2015. The science and pseudoscience of expert testimony. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology SO Lilienfeld, SJ Lynn, JM Lohr 83–112 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  101. McKinstry C, Dale R, Spivey MJ. 2008. Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making. Psychol. Sci. 19:22–24
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, Slobogin C, Otto RK et al. 2017. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers New York: Guilford. , 4th ed..A leading textbook and practitioner handbook for forensic psychological assessments, used by psychologists and lawyers.
  103. Milchman MS. 2011. The roles of scientific and clinical epistemologies in forensic mental health assessments. Psychol. Injury Law 4:127–39
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Milchman MS. 2015. The complementary roles of scientific and clinical thinking in child custody evaluations. J. Child Custody 12:97–128
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Miller SD, Hubble MA, Chow D 2017. Professional development: from oxymoron to reality. Cycle of Excellence: Using Deliberate Practice to Improve Supervision and Training T Rousmaniere, RK Goodyear, SD Miller, BE Wampold 23–47 New York: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BA. 2011. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Rev 58:725–80
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mossman D, Bowen MD, Vanness DJ, Bienenfeld D, Correll T et al. 2010. Quantifying the accuracy of forensic examiners in the absence of a “gold standard. .” Law Hum. Behav. 34:402–17
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Munsterberg H. 1908. On the Witness Stand New York: McClure
  109. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. 2015. Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:37–55
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, Guarnera LA, Rufino KA. 2013. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?. Psychol. Sci. 24:1889–97
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, Zapf PA, Warren JI, Henderson CE. 2008. Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14:177–93
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Murrie DC, Warren JI. 2005. Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: implications for self-monitoring. Prof. Psychol. 36:519–24
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Natl. Comm. Forensic Sci 2015. Testimony using the term “reasonable scientific certainty.” Views Doc., Subcomm. Rep. Testimony Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/page/file/641331/download
  114. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC) 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. PressA watershed report outlining problems with the state of forensic science, motivating major reform efforts.
  115. Neal TMS. 2018. Forensic psychology and correctional psychology: distinct but related subfields of psychological science and practice. Am. Psychol. 73:651–62
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Neal TMS, Brodsky SL. 2016. Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22:58–76
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Neal TMS, Grisso T. 2014a. Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: an international snapshot. Crim. Justice Behav. 41:1406–21
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Neal TMS, Grisso T. 2014b. The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:200–11
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Neal TMS, Lienert P, Denne E, Singh JP. 2022a. A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law Hum. Behav. 46:99–120
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Neal TMS, Sellbom M, de Ruiter C. 2022b. Personality assessment in legal contexts: introduction to the special issue. J. Personal. Assess. 104:127–36 https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hjpa20/104/2 A freely accessible special issue offering critical reviews of psychometric tools used in legal settings.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Neal TMS, Slobogin C, Saks MJ, Faigman DL, Geisinger KF. 2019. Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 20:135–64 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100619888860 A high-profile investigation into the scientific and legal status of psychological assessments in legal contexts.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Neimeyer GJ, Taylor JM, Wear DM. 2009. Continuing education in psychology: outcomes, evaluations, and mandates. Prof. Psychol. 40:617–24
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Nelson A, Lubchenco J. 2022. Strengthening scientific integrity. Science 375:247
    [Google Scholar]
  124. NSW Expert Witness Code of Conduct 2005. Schedule 7. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Aust. )
    [Google Scholar]
  125. O'Connell ME. 2009. Mandated custody evaluations and the limits of judicial power. Fam. Court Rev. 47:2304–20
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Otto RK, DeMier RL, Boccaccini MT. 2014. Forensic Reports and Testimony: A Guide for Psychologists and Psychiatrists Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
  127. Otto RK, Heilbrun K. 2002. The practice of forensic psychology: a look toward the future in light of the past. Am. Psychol. 57:5–18
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Packer IK. 2008. Specialized practice in forensic psychology: opportunities and obstacles. Prof. Psychol. 39:245–49
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Packer IK, Grisso T. 2011.. Specialty Competencies in Forensic Psychology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  130. Paul RW, Elder L. 1990. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State Univ.
  131. Penders B. 2018. Ten simple rules for responsible referencing. PLOS Comput. Biol. 14:4e1006036
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Pres. Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol. (PCAST) 2016. Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods Rep. PCAST Washington, DC: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf A major report recommending continuing action to strengthen the rigor of forensic science.
  133. R v. J.-L.J., (2000) 2 S.C.R. 600 (Can.)
  134. Resnick PJ, Soliman S. 2012. Planning, writing, and editing forensic psychiatric reports. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 35:5–6412–17
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Rotgers F, Barrett D. 1996. Daubert v. Merrell Dow and expert testimony by clinical psychologists: implications and recommendations for practice. Prof. Psychol. 27:467–74
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Saks MJ. 2000. Banishing ipse dixit: the impact of Kumho Tire on forensic identification science. Wash. Lee Law Rev 57:879–900
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Salekin KL, Neal TMS, Hedge KA. 2018. Validity, interrater reliability, and measures of adaptive behavior: Concerns regarding the probative versus prejudicial value. Psychol. Public Policy Law 24:24–35
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Sci. Technol. Select Comm 2019. Forensic science and the criminal justice system: a blueprint for change Rep. HL 2017–19 333 House Lords London: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldsctech/333/333.pdf
  139. Shanteau J. 1992. Competence in experts: the role of task characteristics. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 53:252–66
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG. 2000. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum. Behav. 24:271–96
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Snider JE, Hane S, Berman AL. 2006. Standardizing the psychological autopsy: addressing the Daubert standard. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 36:511–18
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Strauss E, Sherman E, Spreen O 2006. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 3rd ed..
  143. Taylor M, Bird C, Bishop B, Burkes T, Caligiuri M et al. 2020. Forensic handwriting examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach NIST Interagency/Internal Rep. (NISTIR), Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Gaithersburg, MD: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8282
    [Crossref]
  144. Taylor M, Kaye D, Busey T, Gische M, LaPorte G et al. 2012. Latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Gaithersburg, MD: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7842
  145. Tetlock PE. 2009. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  146. Thompson WC, Scurich N. 2018. When does absence of evidence constitute evidence of absence?. Forensic Sci. Int. 291:e18–19
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Towler A, White D, Ballantyne K, Searston RA, Martire KA et al. 2018. Are forensic scientists experts?. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 7:199–208
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Varela JG, Boccaccini MT, Cuervo VA, Murrie DC, Clark JW. 2014. Same score, different message: perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format. Law Hum. Behav. 38:418–27
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Washburn JJ, Lilienfeld SO, Rosen GM, Gaudiano BA, Davison GC et al. 2019. Reaffirming the scientific foundations of psychological practice: recommendations of the Emory meeting on continuing education. Prof. Psychol. 50:77–86
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Wasserman JD, Bracken BA 2013. Fundamental psychometric considerations in assessment. Handbook of Psychology: Assessment Psychology JR Graham, JA Naglieri, IB Weiner 50–80 Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  151. West TV, Kenny DA. 2011. The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychol. Rev. 118:357–78
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Wettstein R. 2005. Quality and quality improvement in forensic mental health evaluations. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law. 33:158–75
    [Google Scholar]
  153. White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., (2015) 2 S.C.R. 182 (Can.)
  154. Witt PH. 2010. Forensic report checklist. Open Access J. Forensic Psychol. 2:233–40
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Woody RH. 2016. Psychological testimony and the Daubert standard. Psychol. Inj. Law. 9:91–96
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Young G, Goodman-Delahunty J. 2021. Revisiting Daubert: judicial gatekeeping and expert ethics in court. Psychol. Inj. Law 14:304–15
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Zapf PA, Dror IE. 2017. Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. Int. J. Forensic Mental Health 16:227–38
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Zapf PA, Kukucka J, Kassin SM, Dror IE. 2018. Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychol. Public Policy Law 24:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Ziskin J. 1970. Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony Beverly Hills, CA: Law Psychol. PressA critical treatise written by an important figure, intended to stimulate a strong scientific foundation.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error