No abstract

The question as to whether the assessment of adaptive behavior (AB) for evaluations of intellectual disability (ID) in the community meet the level of rigor necessary for admissibility in legal cases is addressed. Adaptive behavior measures have made their way into the forensic domain where scientific evidence is put under great scrutiny. Assessment of ID in capital murder proceedings has garnished a lot of attention, but assessments of ID in adult populations also occur with some frequency in the context of other criminal proceedings (e.g., competence to stand trial; competence to waive Miranda rights), as well as eligibility for social security disability, social security insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, government housing, and postsecondary transition services. As will be demonstrated, markedly disparate findings between raters can occur on measures of AB even when the assessment is conducted in accordance with standard procedures (i.e., the person was assessed in a community setting, in real time, with multiple appropriate raters, when the person was younger than 18 years of age) and similar disparities can be found in the context of the unorthodox and untested retrospective assessment used in capital proceedings. With full recognition that some level of disparity is to be expected, the level of disparity that can arise when these measures are administered retrospectively calls into question the validity of the results and consequently, their probative value.

Psychologists conducting forensic assessments often flnd themselves faced with observation requests from third parties. Although the field of neuropsychology has an official position statement and body of literature regarding the presence of third-party observers during evaluations, the psychology-law literature is largely silent on this issue. Graduate students as third-party observers have garnered even less attention from the field of psychology-law, providing little guidance to practitioners considering this practice. Potential effects of graduate student third-party presence on examinee performance, validity of conclusions, and ethical implications for practitioners are examined. In addition, current practices used by psychologists regarding third-party observation by graduate students are explored. Finally, we offer suggestions to psychologists who permit the presence of graduate students during forensic assessments and for graduate students seeking to observe forensic evaluations. This advice is aimed at maintaining ethical practice and minimizing potential impact on the forensic evaluation in the presence of graduate student observers, and at the same time, promoting graduate student learning experiences.

No abstract

No abstract