American Psychological Association (APA) submitted to the Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief(which follows this article). As we will discuss later, the brief had a significant impact on that Court's final decision. The relevant psychological literature was heavily cited in Judge Gesell's original decision (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 1985), and the testimony about the psywho pursued the ease, despite considerable tangible and intangible costs; Ralph Alexander, who dralted a footnote in the brief regarding the use of subjective criteria in personnel decisions; and James Uleman, who commented on an early draft of the brief.

Although the domain of law and psychology is a burgeoning and popular field of study, there has never been a concerted effort to evaluate current training models or to develop newer, more effective ones. Forty-eight invited participants attended a national conference held at Villanova Law School to remedy this deficiency. Working groups addressed issues of education and training for the undergraduate level; for doctoral-level programs in law and social science; for forensic clinical training; for joint-degree (JD/PhD-PsyD) programs; for those in practica, internships, and postdoctoral programs; and for continuing education. This article delineates levels and models of training in each of these areas.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract