| Autor: |
Neal TMS; School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University., Slobogin C; Law School, Vanderbilt University., Saks MJ; Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University., Faigman DL; Hastings College of the Law, University of California., Geisinger KF; Buros Center for Testing, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.; College of Education and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society [Psychol Sci Public Interest] 2019 Dec; Vol. 20 (3), pp. 135-164. |
| DOI: |
10.1177/1529100619888860 |
| Abstrakt: |
In this article, we report the results of a two-part investigation of psychological assessments by psychologists in legal contexts. The first part involves a systematic review of the 364 psychological assessment tools psychologists report having used in legal cases across 22 surveys of experienced forensic mental health practitioners, focusing on legal standards and scientific and psychometric theory. The second part is a legal analysis of admissibility challenges with regard to psychological assessments. Results from the first part reveal that, consistent with their roots in psychological science, nearly all of the assessment tools used by psychologists and offered as expert evidence in legal settings have been subjected to empirical testing (90%). However, we were able to clearly identify only about 67% as generally accepted in the field and only about 40% have generally favorable reviews of their psychometric and technical properties in authorities such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Furthermore, there is a weak relationship between general acceptance and favorability of tools' psychometric properties. Results from the second part show that legal challenges to the admission of this evidence are infrequent: Legal challenges to the assessment evidence for any reason occurred in only 5.1% of cases in the sample (a little more than half of these involved challenges to validity). When challenges were raised, they succeeded only about a third of the time. Challenges to the most scientifically suspect tools are almost nonexistent. Attorneys rarely challenge psychological expert assessment evidence, and when they do, judges often fail to exercise the scrutiny required by law. |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
