This article provides a lawyer's perspective on the issues raised when a training program decides that a trainee is not doing competent work and action must be taken. It serves as a companion piece to Forrest, Elman, Miller (2008) and Wester, Fowell, Fouad, Santiago-Rivera (2008). Potential legal claims of disappointed trainees and best practices to reduce legal risk are reviewed. Risk management advice is generally congruent with other exosystems affecting training programs, such as the accreditation and ethics standards applicable to training in professional psychology, as well as model policies adopted by the Council of Chairs of Training Councils. These recommended practices serve to minimize legal risk, but also promote fairness and program integrity.

An important part of the American Psychological Association's (APA) mission is to advance psychological science "to promote health, education, and public welfare." Organizations with powerful influence on human welfare include state and federal appellate courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. Initially, APA's briefs focused on issues of importance to both individual psychologists and public policy. As the program evolved, APA increasingly focused on informing the courts about psychological science relevant to important legal issues, including criminal, civil, juvenile, education, disability, and human rights law. These briefs, and the science that supported them, consistently challenged stereotypical beliefs of laypeople with solid, easily understood empirical research. APA impartially advocates for the use of psychological science research findings by the courts, not on behalf of parties. Volunteer experts, including representatives of relevant APA divisions, participate in creating APA briefs. On occasion, other scientific organizations may join with APA in its filings. The measure of an amicus brief is broader than citations in appellate decisions. Although APA's briefs have been cited many times by courts, a broader impact of APA briefs is seen by references to psychosocial research provided by APA in decisions where its briefs were not specifically cited. APA briefs are being read and are affecting major legal decisions. For APA, the relevant question is not whether its briefs "prevailed" in a case but whether the court was able to render a more informed decision. An important benefit of APA's amicus program has been advancing both the reputation of psychological science and APA. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract