Testing in juvenile courts: A survey

Naar, Ray

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196104)17:2<210::aid-jclp2270170237>3.0.co;2-e

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been demonstrated through a survey of psychologists working for the courts and court facilities that test results were influenced to some degree by the status of the psychologist's office as part of the court machinery (Naar, 1961). Regardless of how much the psychologist may try to alleviate suspicion, hostility, and evasiveness, the fact that he does represent the court is a factor to be faced openly by both the psychologist and individual referred by the court.…”

Section: The Captive Psychologist and The Captive Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

The captive psychologist and the captive patient.

Riscalla¹

1972

Professional Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Captive Psychologist and The Captive Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

The captive psychologist and the captive patient.

Riscalla¹

1972

Professional Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With some notable exceptions (e.g., Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Borum & Grisso, 1995; Keilin & Bloom, 1986; Lees-Haley, 1992; Lees-Haley et al, 1996; Martin et al, 2001; Naar, 1961; Pinkerman, Haynes, & Kaiser, 1993), there has been relatively less effort to survey the practice of forensic psychology as compared with general clinical practice. This specific focus on forensic psychology is important, as the questions asked in forensic evaluations differ from standard clinical or therapeutic evaluations and thus surveys of general clinical practice are of less relevance to this issue of admissibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts.

Lally

2003

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

228

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When conducting a forensic evaluation, what psychological tests do experts consider acceptable to use? The answer is useful to psychologists making practice decisions but also to the courts, who rely on others' opinions to base one of the criteria for determining the admissibility of testimony. The author surveyed diplomates in forensic psychology (N = 64) regarding both the frequency with which they use and their opinions about the acceptability of a variety of psychological tests in 6 areas of forensic practice. The 6 areas were mental state at the offense, risk for violence, risk for sexual violence, competency to stand trial, competency to waive Miranda rights, and malingering. Results are presented for each practice area, and the implications of these results for the courts, future research, and practice are discussed.

show abstract

“…In addition to the investigation by Neal and Grisso (2014), there have been at least 21 other surveys of mental health practitioners that ask about tool use in general or specific forensic settings (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997a, 1997b; Ackerman, Ackerman, Steffen, & Kelley-Poulas, 2004; Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Boccaccini & Brodsky, 1999; Borum & Grisso, 1995; Bow & Quinnell, 2001; Keilin & Bloom, 1986; LaFortune & Carpenter, 1998; Lally, 2003; Lees-Haley, 1992; Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, & Dunn, 1996; Martin, Allan, & Allan, 2001; McLaughlin & Kan, 2014; Naar, 1961; Pinkerman, Haynes, & Keiser, 1993; Quinnell & Bow, 2001; Rogers & Cavanaugh, 1984; Ryba, Cooper, & Zapf, 2003a, 2003b; Slick, Tan, Strauss, & Hultsch, 2004). Across these 22 surveys, 364 distinct psychological assessment tools were identified as having been used by or acceptable for use by clinicians in forensic settings (King, Wade, & Tilson, 2017).…”

Section: Part I: a Systematic Analysis Of Psychological Assessment Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?

Neal

Slobogin

Saks

et al. 2019

Psychol Sci Public Interest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Testing in juvenile courts: A survey

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The captive psychologist and the captive patient.

The captive psychologist and the captive patient.

What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts.

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About